This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 29 October 2014, At: 08:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Applied Developmental SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hads20

Someone Who Cares: Evaluation of School AdvisorPrograms in Two Community SettingsJoan E. Graham , Kimberly A. Updegraff , Christine A. Tomascik & Susan M. McHalePublished online: 04 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Joan E. Graham , Kimberly A. Updegraff , Christine A. Tomascik & Susan M. McHale (1997) Someone WhoCares: Evaluation of School Advisor Programs in Two Community Settings, Applied Developmental Science, 1:1, 28-42, DOI:10.1207/s1532480xads0101_4

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0101_4

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Applred Developmental Science 1997. Vnl I . No. 1 . 2 W 2

Copyright 1997 hy I-awrence Erlhaum Assaciatcs. Inc.

Someone Who Cares: Evaluation of School Advisor Programs in Two Community Settings

Joan E. Graham and Kimberly A. Updegraff, I)epuroi~errr of Hrinirr~r Develn l~~rrrn/ uird Fanlil\, Srridies

Tile P e ~ ~ ~ r s ? l ~ ~ a n i a SIU~P (/nil'i'r.sih

Christine A. Tomascik Cooprr-alive Ecfeir.si<~n

Tlic P e ~ r ~ i r y h a ~ ~ i u Srur~) IJir i i~ersip

Susan M. MeHale D~,parmie~rr of Hlmrnir D ~ ~ , e l o p i ~ l r ~ r r rrrrd F(rinrily Srrrdies

Tlrc Pc r r~ i . ~y /~~an ia Srure U~river.sir~

We ci'ulunred rhe irfrporr r,JS<.lronl Adi~isor Pr(~,qrcrrrl.s o?r ~ O N I I R 11r1oIe~cet11.s' acudeniic. p.vychnlogici11, rr~r~ip.sycl~u,socialJ~~~c/ic~i~i~rg ill nl:o i l ; f fPre~~f ~ e r f i i ~ g . ~ : [ur rirl~crtr undu rriral c . o~~ i r?~w~ iy . T!ie,se proKrunis n'ere exprcfr!d lo hl+fl(,r stralt~~rrs fianr the ~lecliiri~.s irr j , i~ lc / i~mi i rg i f i e ~ i obsen'ni d r r r i i i ~ early iriJOIi~.scenc~ rhro~r,gli r t r ~ rsrnblishrrrcrrr of c l ~ ~ s e , s~rpporfive rel~rrir,rrrhip.s tvirl~ crifrr1r.i it1 rlir .sctn,ol serfi in^. The de.sig11 atrd irnplenicrifuriorr of t/icprogr[~ni.s tookpl~ice il l tile co~rre.r/ ~~fcoinn~r~irin-rinh~er~sity~~rrrrner.shi~~.i: a~mly.si,s ofrlrc irnple~rrei~tutiori proci,ss hi,qhli~hred tire nr? in n.hick pmgrisirs ore urljrrsred r r~ t11r u~riqrie c n ~ r c e t ~ ~ . ~ n~ rd ,r.sor~,re.v qfdiffere~r co~ivirrtniry serrbrgs. Prrrricipn~lts inclrrded 157 st~~~e~rth-prude srirdef~~s ill rrn i ~ r l ~ a ~ r conlmrirriry mrrl I I 8 ei~ghtli-l(rac1e students it1 a rriral cotitnuari/y. Irr 11ri' urha~r serrii~p, ~'ol~rrrreer rc,iccherudvi.sor.s nier i~~eekly wirh 3 to 7sr1r~Ie1r.rrrs bi a .srirall grorrp,fomlar duri~iy: u re,yrilurly .selieduledperiod ofrhc srhoold~ry. Re.~rilr.sfr,r l/i;,s c~?nr~~ l r i~ i i r v r r ~ ~ i ' ~ I c d grn11p d~f i rc~nr~r,s~rt~nr i~r,q ~r~di ,~ i r .s ill the ud~'i.sc>r proKrrmr in extrocrrrric~rlirr acriviry eiIjoyi~rrnr, grade poiirr iiivrrrge (GPA'A) ,old iiepres.iioii. In adilitioir, i i idi~~idrrul diffrre~rces irr prngru~rl e.xprpr,-ieilccs n,ere l i r r k r ~ d r ~ ~ stude~ar' I-iJporfs of the i r~ ' x t r~~c~r r r i c~~ l~ i r f~c I i v i~? nrjos~ne~rt. !?I IIIP NL~LI I cinrnt~iirirv. /eochera~jv i~ors usere r e i d r r e r p s 1 1 r c o o r d i a i i i ~ d i i d i l i ~ i e i ~ g s n i l I 0 5 srrzd<~nf.s driring corie,ror1 free perii~<l,s. f i ~ r l i n x s fro111 rhe rrrrrrl c~~~iriitrrri iry re~~c,uled iru grorrp d;ffere~rcrs/ir~~r~ri~ti: r / fr pruAvrnni jirmrp n>it!t f11~ eserpfir~~r rlror srrrcienrs iii rlre o d ~ ~ i s o r prozrunr reporrrilhi,qhier G1'A.s. Process cl~lfnshou~i~drhcrr r l i~ud~~ ivorprogrunr reached otily a smrrll proporriorr of ,stridcrrrr in rhis ci~nrmrirrir?. D~,rcrr.s.sion,focrrsrs or! progrrrnl ~ t t d rertinp c/~riracterisrics tlrur 11mq r~ffect proy:r<IiJi i / i i p l e ~ ~ i e n r [ i r i ~ ~ ~ iind efferril-~i!r~e~.~.

Early adolescence is a period of the life span marked for many atlolescen~s. For example, decreases i n self- by considerable physical and social change (Elliott & esteem. grades. and evaluations (11-school experiences Feldman. 1990) including the onset uf puberty, the tran- (Haladyna & lliomas, 1979: Hirsch & Dubois. 199 1; sition to middle or junior high school, and the initiation Simmons & Rlyth. 1987). as well as increases in eat in^ of dating. Early adolescence also marks the heginning disorclers. depression. and suicide, have been found to of declines in functionrng across a number of domains occur atthis time (Petersen. 1985). It h a been suggested

that such difficulties are the beginning of a downward spiral for some adolescents (Eccles et al., 1993).

Eccles and colleagues (Eccles & Midgley, 1989: Thir work was fundctl by the Camcgic Corporalion o lNcw York

and hv funds frnnl rhc Collcecs o i A~ricullural Scicnces and Hsallh Eccles el 31.. 1993) argued that the transition from and Hvrniln I>evelnpment C~~llnhonr~vu Re\rarch I'roprum elernenlary to junior hizh school negatively affects

Forlbeirinvt~lvernent inlhisprojrd.wr~vuuldlikct~~rbmkAlisort :rdulescents' well-being hecause the junior high envi- Raker. Nillalie Ferry. Paul King, H;lrold Krarrcr. Elirahrth Menlove. ronment is at odcis with developmental Sharon McGrodrr. Jne Moran. Dawn Ohcillallah. Slcvc Shrivcr. Ron needs. In comparison with elementary classrooms. jun- SIECIC. and Maureen Voilek

R r r l U F ~ l s f,,r rrpnn,s shln,ld hs a:nl lo MctlatL.. Cl,tlcge nr ior high classrooms ;we characterized hy pester reacher Menllh and Human evel lop me^^. Slate Lln~vemii~, llnivcrrily cclntrol and discipline, less personal and ~osi t ive Park. PA lhUrJ2. teacher-student relationships, more whole-class in-

28

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

EVALUATION OF SCHOOL .ADVISOR PROGRAMS

shuction and between-ability grouping, lower teacher efficacy. assignments requiring lesser cognitive chal- lenge, and higher standards for judging students' com- petencies (Eccles & Midgley. 1989). Such contextual characteristics, these investigators noted, are antitheti- cal to thedevelopmental tasksofadolescence, including needs for autonomy, decision-making experiences, re- lationships with supportive adults. small-group and hands-on instruction. and cognitively challenging tasks. Based on their analyses, Eccles and Midgley (1989) proposed a stage-mvironment f i t theory: They postulated that development is enhanced when personal characteristics are congruent with the demands of the environment. From this perspective, declines in func- tioning during early adolescence are the result o f a developmental nlismatch between adolescents' devel- oprnental stages and the nature o f their environments (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Eccles et al.. 1993).

The School Advisor Program

This study is an evaluation o f two School Advisor Programs implemented in different communities. A t the most general level, the School Advisor Program was designed to improve the match between adolescents' needs and the demands o f theirjunior high school envi- ronments. I t involved assigning volunteer teacher advi- sors to young adolescents for individual or small group meetings to discuss students' concerns and to engage in social and learning activities. Advisor or mentor pro- grams for adolescents have been conducted in a variety o f contexts (e.g.. Goldberg. 1983; Hamilton & Hamil- ton, 1990: Peppard, 1991: Spencer, 1990); the goal underlying such programs is to provide adolescene with an adult role model with whom they can develop a close. supportive relationship and with whom they can feel connected, particularly in a novel orchallengingcontext. In the junior high school environment, advison can provide information and guidance to adolescents who may be unfamiliar with the workings o f the school and who, without such assistance, may become over- whelmed or alienated by its large and complex institu- tional structure. The goal o f the advisor programs evalu- ated in this study was to enable young adolescents to establish close. supportive relationships with adults in the school setting. We expected that program panici- pants would be less likely to exhibit "normative" de- clines in psychological and academic functioning in early adolescence and less likely to show increases in feelings o f alienation toward school than would youth who did not participate in School Advisor Programs.

Ecological Issues in Program Implementation

i n developing ~ntervention programs for youth, such as school programs, issues of tit arise at a number of

levels. Effective programs [nust match the developmen- tal needs o f their participant5, and they also must f i t the demands and resources of the particular settings in which they are implemented (Weissberg. 1990). In this study. we contrast the implementation and evaluation of School Advisor Programs in two different ecologies. an urban and a rural community. The grounding of our work in an ecological framework (Bronfenbrenner. 1979) was the basis for our interest in how the unique opportunities and constraints of two different local communities would influence the structure and imple- mentation o f programming efforts ibr adolescents.

The programs we evaluated were developed i n the context of community-university collaborative pan- nerships (McHale et a].. 1996). which involved com- munity members and researchers bringing together their knowledge and expertise regarding local concerns. resources, and constraints on the one hand and research methods, theory, and data on the other to address youth development issues. The loss of experimental control that comes from treating community members as equal partners in program development and implementation. however, means that, from a research design perspec- tive, direct comparisons of program outcomes across contexts often wi l l not be meaningful. A possible ex- ception would be if communities choose to implement programs in very similar ways, which from an ecologi- cal perspective, would be highly unlikely. On the other hand, our collaborative approach provides us with an important opportunity: A consideration o f differences in program implementation across contexts may illumi- nate key decision points in the process and highlight distinctive elements of intervention programs that might otherwise go unremarked. Such information should be useful in future efforts to implement and evaluate School Advisor Programs. Thus, one purpose o f this work was to shed light on the program develop- ment and implementation process by examining the ways in which and the reasons for which programs were conducted differently in different community settings,

Evaluation o f the School Advisor Progrants

Although mentor relationships are considered to be beneficial in promoting competence, self-assurance. and support in the face o f new situations (Hamilton & Darling. 1989), little research exists to document the processes by which these heneficial effects occur. Also. few outcome-oriented evaluation studies o f the advisor programs described in the literature have been con- ducted (e.g., Goldberg, 1983: Hamilton & Hamilton. 1990; Peppard. 1991; Spencer, 1990). Evaluation o f these programs is necessary: (a) to document differ- ences in outcomes for program participants versus non- participants and to assess whether those differences ;we due to the program or to other aspects of adolescents'

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

GRAHAM. UPDEFRAW. TOMASCIK. h MrHALE

experiences; and (b) to determine whether the program that extracurricular activity enjoyment (the School Ad- was implemented as planned and to measure the extent visor Program was an extracurricular activity) would be to which differences in program experiences are linked affected more strongly than would overall school en- to differences i n outcome among program participants. joyment, grade point average (GPA), or perceived scho- The goals of our analyses were to address these issues lastic competence. I n the domain o f psychological nd- of program outcome and process. justment, we expected that symptoms of depression

Program evaluation researchers advocate the use o f (negative feelings about oneself over the past 2 weeks) theory i n program evaluation toconstruct plausible and would he influenced more strongly by the prognrn than justifiablemodelsofhowaprogramisexpectedtowork would general self-worth (stable view ol oneself as a (Bickman. 1987; Chen & Rossi, 1987). This study, person) or misconduct (behaviors over the prst year). grounded i n Eccles and Midgley's (1989) stage-envi- Measuresofpsychosocial maturity wereregxdedi~s most ronment f i t theory, used such a theory-driven evalu- distally connected to program experiences. ation approach (Chen. 1990). Again. the premise under- lying the programs was that "normative" declines in adolescents' adjustment might be prevented by improv- Method ing the fit between the characteristics ofthe junior high school environment and the needs o f adolescents (Ec- Overview o f the Advisor Programs cles et al.. 1993). As indicated in Figure I. experiences in the School Advisor Programs (the delivered treat- The two settings involved i n this evaluation were an ment variable) were measured by reports o f the amount urban community in northeastern Pennsylvania (popu- o f contact between the student and advisor. Perceived lation = 49.300) and a rural community in central Penn- advisor warmth was hypothesized to be the intervening sylvania (population = 1,422). I n hoth settings, students mechanism through which the programs brought about attended junior-senior high schools (Grades 7-12). the expected outcomes, given Eccles and Midgley's I n the urban setting, a community-wide concern (1989)emphasison theimportanceinearly adolescence for adolescent well-being evolved from the results o f o f close relationships with nonparental adults and feel- a local needs assessment, which revealed low levels ings o f connectedness with the school environment. of psychosocial functioning for seventh- and eighth- Students' sex and baseline adjustment scores were in- grade students across a variety o f domains. A com- cluded as exogenous variables because both may affect munity-university partnership met to discuss these how students experienced the advisor programs. par- findings and to generate strategies to promote ado- titularly the development of the relationship between lescent development i n the community; the School student and advisor. Advisor Program was one strategy identified by the

With respect to outcome variables, the location o f partnership. The partnersl~ip i n the second rural com- these programs in the school setting (i.e., the advisors munity also conducted a needs assessment: i n this were teachers, the activities occurred mainly i n the study, the results revealed that one cohort in one of school setting, discussions often were schnol-related) the two junior-senior high schools i n the district led us to expect that group differences would be more reported lower levels o f functioning than did other pronounced forsc/rool-relaredoritcomes(academic per- groups of students. School personnel i n this commu- formance, feelings about school experiences) than for nity expressed interest i n developing a program to outcomes related to psychological well-beir~g (self-es- promote the functioning o f this particular group, and teem, depression) or psyrhorocial maturity (work ethic. a School Advisor Program was identified as a possi- identity). I n addition, we anticipated that, within these ble intervention. three domains, outcomes that were most proximally Each partnership developed a School Advisor Pro- related to the adv~sor program would be more strongly grmi to f i t the demands and rcsources of the school and affected than would those more distally related to pro- conimunity context. I n the urban community, seventh- gram experiences. I n the xea o f academics, this meant grade students met with their advisors in n small group

Emgcnou V.ri.bC -- - Tmc A,, , s o w -- _- -~ -- ~~~~ -

~\

-- ~~ -~ .~~ -'A- ,\

A,- - -4 ~,

A " -(%? w."",,. D",rn,n. V.r"bl. j * jT"nr2Snlm 1

//+ -

_, .I -- 4-' -. -~~ ..

~~~ ~~- [cF;32;,",,b,: - --

-

Fimre 1. Theory underlyiq the Srhnnt Advisor Program eflecI.5.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

EVALUATION O F SCHOOL .ADVISOR PKOGRAMS

setting (onc advisor and three to seven students) during an established activity period at the end of the school day. Because students lived near the school, program activities sometilnes were extended beyond the regular school day. Many of the teacher advisors, however. lived in communities other than the one in which they taught. I n this community. teachers interested in serving as advisors responded to a general faculty an- nouncement ( 1 1 = 15 teachers).

Incontrast with the program implementation process in the urban community, students in the rural commu- nity were expected to meet with advisors during their study halls and lunch periods because no common activity period existed. Furthermore, students met indi- vidually with their advisors rather than as a group, given the more limited opportunity for meeting times. Because most students lived far from school (as much as I%-hr bus ride), and because buses left immediately after school,few opportunities existed for students and advisors to meet informally outside of school hours. In contrast with the urban school, the target rural school was the community school for most of the potential advisors in this setting. Many teachers had children who attended the school and knew the families of their students-?$ well as those o f other teachers in the school. Thus, i t was decided that the two guidancecounselors. building on theirexistingrelation- ships with the teachers, should recruit advisors in indi- vidual meetings. I n this community. 47 advisors par- ticipated in the program.

In sum, the two programs differed greatly in struc- ture from the outset. First, the advisor program in the urban community targeted seventh-grade students who had recently made the transition to junior high school. The rural advisor program, in contrast, targeted eighth graders who also had made a junior high transition a year earlier and who were chosen for the program primarily because o f low baseline scores. Second, stu- dents in the urban community met during an activity period scheduled during the school day, whereas advi- sors i n the rural community were responsible fororgan- idng meetings with their student advisees during free periods. Third, students i n the urban program met with their advisors in a group; students in the rural program met with their advisors on an individual basis. Fourth, teachers in the urban community volunteered in re- sponse to a faculty announcement, whereas teachers in the rural community were recruited by guidance coun- selors to participate. Finally, students in the urbancom- munity, because of their closer geographic proximity to the school. had more opportunities to engage in activi- ties with their advisors after school and on weekends than did students in the rural community. These differ- ences in program slructure are iniportant to note be- cause they have implications for program implementa- tion 'and, ultimately. for the advisor program's impact on student functioning.

Study 1: School Advisor Program in an Urban Community

Sample

Participants included 157 seventh-grade students. slightly more than half of whom were girls (54%). A t baseline, the students in this study attended one o f the eight elementary schools in the school district: sub- sequently, they made the transition to one o f three jun- ior-senior high schools in the same school district. Stu- dents eligible for the program were those whocompleted the baseline survey in the sixth grade and who became enrolled in the largest "inner city" juniorlsenior high school in the district. The students in the program and control groups were mainly White (89%); the sample alsoincluded asmall percentageofBlack. Native Ameri- can, and Asian students (1 I%). The majority o f students reported that their parents were high school graduates (95%); about one fourth said their parents also had some collegeeducation (29%) and about one fifth reported that their parents were college graduates (l9%.).

Compared with the total teacher population in the school district (47% women. 53% men; McHale et al.. 1993). women were slightly overrepresented in the ad- visor group, which included 8 women and 7 men. The majority of advisors were married and were highly satisfied (M = 6 on a I-7-point scale) with their jobs. The advisors' number of years teaching ranged from 2 to 25 years (median = 6.5). Furthermore. slightly more than half of the advisors (62%) taueht seventh-grade students.

Design

A quasi-experimental comparison group design was used to evaluate the impact of the School Advisor Pro- gram (Cook & Campbell, 1979: Rossi & Freeman. 1993). Participants were assigned to one of three groups: ( I ) a quasi-experimenralgroup, which participated in a 20-week advisor program and in which students were assigned a teacher advisor with whom they met weekly i n = 57); (2) a within-school corzrrol group, which included students who attended the school in which a School Advisor Program was held but who were not assigned teacher advisors (11 = 36): and (3) an orcrside- school co~~rrol group, which included students who made the transition to one o f two junior-senior high schools other than the program school and who were not assigned teacher advisors (n = 64). Baseline dam were collected at the end o f students' sixth-grade year (Time I, prior to program implementation), at the end of the students' seventh-grade year (Time 2, following intervention), and at the end o f the students' eighth- grade year (Time 3, I-year follow-up).

A l l students who had completed the baseline sur- veys and who attended one of the two targeted schools

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

GRAHAM. UPDECRAFF. TOMASCIK. & McHALE

(program andcontrol) werestratified according to sum- mary risk status (high versus low risk) based on their baseline grades, depression scores, and parents' marital status: they were then randomly selected from within these strata to participate in either the program or in the two control groups. Group assignments were shown to school administrators. who had requested final approval for the selection procedure. When shown the original grouping sssignments, school ad- rninistrators i n tlie program school were concerned that some students who were most at risk, and there- fore could benefit from the program. had not been assigned to the program. As a result, I I girlsand 8 boys were switched from the within-school control group to the prograni group. ( I t was becauseofthese adjustments in group assignments that the study employed a quasi- experimental rather than an experimental design.) The resulting groups did not differ in sex composition or in terms of parents's marital status.

Attrition rates were calculated separately for each o f the three groups (Jurs & Glass. 1971). Students i n the program group were more likely to remain i n the study through Time 2 than were those in either !he within- school control group or the cwtside-school control Eroup.X2(1)=6.3,p<.~~.~~=108anii~'(~)=5.8,p< .05, t r = 142, respectively: however, fnllow-up analyses indicated that no significant differences existed on any haseline measure between those whodropped out o f the study versus those who remained in the study.

Design o f the School Advisor Program

Although originally desisned to take place during the entire seventh-grade year. implementation d i f f i - culties mednt that the advisor prosram occurred only during the spring semester o f students' seventh-grade school year, a period o f approximately 4 months. Each advisor was assigned from three to seven ad- visees o f the same sex, depending on the number of advisees he or she requested. Students were expected to meet regularly (at least once a week) with their school advisors and other students assigned to the same advisor in a small group to discuss both aca- demrc and personal concerns as well as to participate i n activities developed by the advisors. Advisors initiated many types o f activities. ranging from math puzzles to tie-dyeing I-shirts to attending hasehall games. As noted. advisor meetings lasted approxi- mately 40 minutes.

Procedure

Students were surveyed about their academic ex- periences, well-being. and psychosocial maturily at the ends o f 3 successive school years (sixth, seventh. and eighth grades). Students who p:lrtiripnted in the School Advisor Program also reported on their expe-

riences i n the program and their perceptions o f their relationships with their advisors at Time 2. Further- more, advisors completed a survey at the end of the program (Time 2) that assessed their overall experi- enceswitlitheprogram.Inadditinn,Iogswerecollected from students (on a monthly hasis) and advisors (on a weekly hasis) during the course o f the program to assess program experiences.

Measures

011tror7re rrretrsurcs focused on three general areas of student functionins. Acndenric adjr~stnrrtrr was meas- ured in terms ofstudents' performance and e\raluations o f their school experiences. GPAs were calculated hased on students' school- recorded grades in tlie four major academic areas (English. math, social studies, and science). At Time 3, students' reports o f grades were used because school-record grades were no! available. Analyses of data collected i n previous phases, however. rer,ealed correlations o f .X4 and .8Y between self-reported and school-recorded grades at Time I and Time 2, respectively. Perceived scholastic competence was measured via Harter's Self-Percep- tion Profile (Harter, 1985). On this measure. students responded to five items designed to tap their feelings o f competence in school (Cronbach's u = .76). I n addition, students rated their enjoyment o f extracurricular activi- ties (on a 4-point scale) and their enjoyment of school (one 5-point scale): higher scores indicated more posi- tive experiences.

Ps~clrolo~icalfiorrtiorrb~~ was assessed by use o f the general self-worth subscale o f the Harter Self-Per- ception Profile, the Children's Depression Inventory (Kovacs. IYXI), and the Risky Behavior Scale (Eccles & Barber. 1990). The 5-item general self-worth suhscale of the Self-Perception Profile was used as a measure of students' self-esteem. The Children's De- pression Inventory. which includes 27 items. assessed students' feelines ofdepression during the past 2 weeks. One item pertaining to suicidal ideation was not used in this study at the request of school administrators. On the Risky Behavior Scale, students reponed the fre- quency of t l i r ir involvement in 18 delinquent activit~es (e.g., smoking, drinking. vandalism). A t Time I, Cron- bach's alphas were . X I . .92, and .Y2 for self-wonh. depression. and misconduct, respectively.

Dimensions o i 'p .~r l~osockr l n ~ a r a r i q included stu- dents' work orientation and identity development. Work ethic and identity development were measured by subscales from the Psychosocial Maturity Inventory (Greenberger & Bond. 1984). Each subscale includes 10 items. At Time I, alpha reliabilities were .82 for work orientation and .72 for identity development.

Exp'xrnoron. (process) nzeosures included students' reports of tlieir tiequency of contact (i.e.. number o f contacts hetween student and advisor per week) with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

EVALUATION OF SCHOOL AI IVISOI? PRO(;tIAMS

thcir ;ldvisnr as measured by ~nomli ly logs and by the Tinic 2 survey ki l lowing the trdvisor program. Advisor? also repr~rteil on their frequency o f contact with tlieir :rdvisees cacli week t l i r o u ~ h contitct logs. Students' pcrccptions ol';~dvisor warmth were measured at Time 2 hy ;I I h-item sc;~le cre;tterl for tliis stutly that inquired :rhnut the quality o f the student-irdvisor reli~tinnsttip leg.. "TI' I liad ;I probleni. I u~nuld go talk to my advisor"1. Crnnhacli's ;~lpha irlr this measure w:rs .94.

Results

Overview of Analyses

Analy\es were conducted to test for hctween-group ~liffercn~.cs 1i.c.. \vhctlicr students in tlie program group clitfcred in fitnctinning fro111 either control group) and thc r.i~rrelatc.s 01' within-group differences (i.e.. wliethcr pro- gr;ttn cxperienccs were rel;~tcd to student ndjustment at Time 21. First. :lseries o f Timc x Gniup rcpenred measures :~n;~lyses ~ r i ' virrinncc (4NOVAs) was conductetl to asess c h ; t n p in studettts' funcriontn:! over time. Time effects were exarninal to see wlietlier tlie declines in well-hein; i~crosx the tn~nsitiiiri IoJttnir~r liigh schriol mirrored thmc Iiiulrd by prevlous rescarcliers (c.:.. Eccles et al., 1993; H;~I:tdynn & Thoma. 1'179: Petcrsen. 1985: Sl~nmons & Blylli. I<1871. Time x (;roup in1er:stinn ef'fccts pro\,idetl ~ti l i~r~ii ;rt ion ;~hout wlielher the three groups chan~ed dif- Ikrently over tirnr. For eircli signilicant 1n1cr;lction effect. li11lou'-up tests werrertitn:rted tn~lcter~nine whichgrc~~tps \vcrc \ignitic;tnrl? different. Bccituse it was predicted 11131 srodents in the progr;rm group would repon morc piisitive oitlciltlies Timc 2 tli:rn wt,uld students in either contrul grilup. ~~ne-t;~ilcd tests oi'signilicance were employed.

Next. one-way an;~lyses of covariance ( ANCOVAs) \adere calculirled 10 test whether between-group differ- cncrs ct?uld he cxplainetl hy k~ctors that were not ac- cn~tntcd lirt- in the ANOV.4s (ic., students' sex. p;lr- etits' Ie\t-l n l ' r~ lucat in~i . and studcnts' pretest sc~ires on llic iiulciin1cs heing terteil).

To arsess prognttn itiiplemenlirtion irnd whether prtl- :r:irn erpcricnccs were l inkri l i n students' functioning :II 'rime 2. dcscriptivc stat is ti^'^ first were c;tlculated to esti~n:tre tlrc degree n f vnriahility in students' and ad\+ \err' program experiences. Path models then were con- \trui.terl in an ci ' f~~rt to explore the prircesscs leiding I'ronr l ir i~gr;~rn experiences to itidividual differences in uutciltne\ for ihc prosrnnl gri>up.

Ulianges Over Time in Stodent~ ' I:enctionin~

C'll;~nge\ in drirnains o f stu~lents' adjustment ;!cross llle tr;~nsrliiln tojunior higlt school were exilmined to see if1116 "11orn1:1ti\.~" declinc~ in well-being reported in tlie litcr:~turc would he :tpparcnr in tliis simple (seeT;~ble I 1. In the arc;\ o f ac;~deniic ncijusl~nenr, analyses revealed

that, on average. studcnts declined in all arc:ts except perceived scholastic competence (extr;lcurricular en- joyment. NI .137)= 2 3 . 1 8 . ~ < .OI: scho(rl enjoyment. F(1. 144) = 12.08.1~ c O l : GPA. F(1. 125) = 55.26.1, < .O I ). Examination o f studcnts' psychological u>ell-hc- ing scores rcvculed l l i i ~ t students' reports of tiiisconducr significantly inurri~sed over tiine. 1;( 1.140) = 27.09. /J < .01; neither students' levels 111' general self-worth nor their reports of clepresrive sytiiptoms. however. cli;~nged over time. ITinxlly. in ternis of' psycliosocrnl functioning. students reportcd ;I significant decline in work ethic. Fl I, 14.1) = 10.65, p < .Ill. hut no signiticnnt chanee emerged for students' identity devcloptnent.

Program Impact: Group Differences in Students' Adjustment

Academic r~djustment. Altl~nuglt the meatis su2- gest thitt the program gmup exhihiled p(i(irer Iitnctii>n- ing in a numherofdo~nains(c~>ncislent with the fact th:rt ptiorly i'unctioning students h:~d hcen reassigned into rlte prilgrarn group), preliminary ;tni~lyses revealed ni l b;~seline (Time 11 group diffct-cnces. Twn significant 'rime x Group inrer;tctinns emerged l i ~ r tlie iI<~ni:tin (11' ;rademic-related adjustment: Group differetices in change over t i~ i ie wcrr detected lia extr:icurricular ;LC-

tivity enjoyment. F(2. 1371 = 6.26. p < ,111 and (iP12. F(Z. 125) = 6.29.p < .01. Follow-up plnnned contr:tsts revenlcd thitt tlie program grnup di lkret l significnntl), froni hntli the within-school and i>utride-sclio~il contrill groups in extr:surricular activity enjoyment. u,ith stu- dents in the prugmm group reporting 3 significantly sniallcr dcclinr in extracurricular ;tctivity er~jnynient Ih;~n thorc in either thc within-sclionl i ir ootride-scltocil contr<il groups. F( I. 137) = 5.97, p < 0 5 itnil Fl I. 137 = 1 1.49. 1' < .O I. respectively. I n terrns o f gr:tdes. 311

three groups exliihited a cleclinc in GPA; h<ltli l l ic progratii anrl within-school contr~i l groups. linwcver. experienced signtiic:~ntly srnnller declines in GPA tli;ln did the outside-schriiil control group. 1 . 175) = 1 1.0'). p<.Ol and F'( I . I Z i 1 = 7 . 0 1 . p < . O I . r e ~ e c t i ~ e l ~ . ' T ' l i e s e findings suggest [hilt tnuch nfthc GPA effrct ii i;~? he due to school efl'ects r;~tlrer than program-related I'ilcrors.

To test wllether f:~ctors other t l i i~n group mernhership explained the grnup differences foond in thesc ;~n;rlyses. three co\-ari;~tcs were ntlded to the design: swdents' pretest scores f ix tlir outcome heing tested, stu~lmts' wx. and parents' levels of education. In thc :lien of extnlcurricular activity enjriytnent. the proft-iltn grnup continued to differ from hoth thc within-cchnol :~nd c,utside-sclinnl conrrol groups. F'(5.75): 1 1.54.11 <.I l l . ;lnd F(1. 1371= 1 l . iL) , /~<.OI. rcspecl iv~ly. Innddi~ion. thc program :~ncl o~tlside-~clionl control grilups re- mained significan~ly different on CPA. F i 1. 12.51 = I 1.0Y. 11 < .OI . C<,rnpnrisons oi' tlie two contrc!l group>. however. revealed tliat grnop inemhership continued to :scr~unt for a rignilicant portion nf the dtlfcrencc in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

GRAHAM. UPIIEGKAFF. TOMASCIK. R hlrHA1.E

Table 1. Unodjusred Mrans and S~undrrrrl Dnk~rionsfur Snt~l~~rrr Ft~rrclicr,t~in~ hi. GmrcpJor rltv Cirhrrr, Co,,~rr~,iirv'

Time 1 Rctreatmcnt Time 2 Pmllmatment Timr 3 Onc-Ycor Follow-up

Oulcomc .$4 SI) M SD M S l )

Extncumculsr Eniclyment Program l Y i l 0.95 289 0.9'1 2.73 1.11

Withln-School 3.23 D xo Z 69 I O h 2.76 0.99

Oulsidc-School 3 25 0.79 2.54 1.10 Z ho 09X

Ovcrall School En.ioymen1 Propram 2.20 1.15 I X5 I l l 6 189 I 1')

Withtn-School 2.31 I O R 194 101 L 42 l llh

Outsidr~School 2.27 l l n 1.97 I I h I 83 l ilh

GPA' Pruuwdrrmm 3 7r1 0.94 3.35 1 04 7.78 0 92

Wilhin-Schcn,l 3 LJ1 0.90 3 U 1 19 1513 1.14

Outsidc-School 160 0.88 285 1.21 3 49 11'19

Perceived Scholastic Campelcncu Program 29? 0.78 2.4 I 0.76 7 45 11.89

Willhn-School l i12 0 711 3.05 I1 hX 1711 (1 79

Oolridc-School 2 9h 0 72 2.77 (1 61 341) 1171

Depression Prognm 111.78 11.36 H 50 9 28 ') 85 10 63

Wilhin-School 8.79 7 .M X 43 7 X7 H 46 10.42

Oulside-School X.57 7.Xh <):I3 871 H 54 736

Gcncnl Self-worth Program 2 'Jll OK2 ZX'J O X I 3 72 0.66

Within-School 3 15 11.67 3.05 n.64 3.82 0.67

Outsirle-School 291 0 77 7 112 I1 hH 7 69 0.70

Misconduct Prnprnm 2632 10.31 28.91 11.13 34 53 I2 08

Within-School 26.57 91x1 29.26 ln.811 32 23 17 (16

Outride-Schml 26 16 XI13 ?kl 90 10.5? 36.1 3 13.38

Work Ethic Progmrn Wilhln-School Outride-School

1.78 0 . ~ 3 2.70 [I zs z 65 (1.58 2.85 0.53 2.63 0.57 ? 79 (1 59 z url n.54 2.69 o 57 2 67 II 60

Identity' Pragmm 2.96 11.70 31M 11 711 -

-

Wilhin-School T n l 11 57 3.03 0 5') - -

Outstde-School 315 0.51 3 17 0.54 - -

"High score% indicatc lhighcr levcls oflhc conalrucl. k t 'Time 3. self-rcponcd grades u,erc enlplayecl 'tdenlity drvrlopmcn ax no1 ~!lc:~sa~.rcI 21 Ihr I-yu;" fc>llow-up.

GPA, w i t h students in the within-schnol control group receiv ing higher grades than those in the outside-school

cont ro l group. F( 1.73) =? 1.95.p < .O5. These t ind ings

support the not ion that differences in GPA were due to

schnul-related rather than program-related factors.

Psycho log i ca l ad jus tmen t . W i t h respect t o slu-

dents' psychological adjustment. on l y one T i m e x Group interaction was found for the measure of depres-

sion. F(2. 147) = 4.67, p < .O?. Planned contrasts re-

vealed that the program group declined sl ight ly in de-

pression, whereas the t w o control groups both reported

increases in depressive symptoms. F(1. 147) = 3.12. p < .10 and F ( l . 147) = 9.22.11 <.Ill, respectively. n i e t w o

cnnhd groups did not signit icantly di f fer from each other

i n psychological adjustment over time. A h e r conuo l l ing

for the effects o f the covariales, program students' rcpons

of depressive sylnptonis did not signif icantly difTer f r om

those of ihr within-school cnnunl group. Instead. slu-

dents' pretest rcports of depressive symptoms ac-

counted lilr the difference between the t w o groups at

T i m e 2. F ( 5 . 80) = 18.45, 11 < .01. Depression scores

continued todi f fers igni l icnnt ly, however. f<atheprt lgmm

and outside-school cnntrnl groups (hut not fn r the program

and wi th in-sc l~oo l control groups). even t~ f t e r cnntr t l l l ing

forcovariates, 1. 147) = 0.22. p < .O1.

Psychosoc ia l ad,justment. No signi l icanl T i m e x G r o u p inter:ct i r~ns emerged for ei ther w o r k ethic o r

ident i ty deve lnp~nent . Ihe t w o measures of p s y c l i o o -

ci31 matur i ty.

Tc) assess whether g o u p differences u8ere rnnint;~ined

acrnss r11e year l i r l lowing the prograni. ;I final series (11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

EVALUATION OF SCHOOL ADVISOR PROGRAMS

ANOVAS was conducted to mensure group difFerences advisors' experiences in the advisor p n i g r ~ ~ m . In addi- In pilnerns of change. In these analyses, tlie dependent tion. regression analyses were conducted to explain variables were quadratic polynomial scores calculated individual differences in adjustlnent at Time 2 as a lhy ;I \b,eiglited combination of students' adjustment function o f program expericnccs. scorer i ~ t three poinh in tirne (Rovine & von Eye. 1990). 'Il~ese polynornrd scores allou, fora~niparisonsof students' li~nctii>ningiicrciss three points in time in asingle analysis. Findings rcvealetl group differences in students' patterns nfcl~ange in GPA, dcpression.andextracurricularacti\~ity enjoyment. I;(?. 113) = R.92.p< .01. F(2. 131)=4.92. 11 < .Ill. ;ind Fl2. 123) = 6.82. p < .01. respectively. F~il lnw-up crintr~~sts showed that the program group'< pattern oichnngc differed signilicantly from tlie outside- sclionl control group in terms of GPA, I;( 1 . 99) = 12.96, 17 < .01. extracunicular activity enjoyment, F(I, 95) = 11.21.~~c.Ol.anddepressi11n.F~I. 101)= 10.39.p<.01; \ee Fifure 2. I n iidditi~m, thestudents in tlie programgroup diftt-red from students in the witl~in-school contr~il group in llieirp:~ttem nicliange in extr;surriculnr :tclivilyenjoy- men!. Fil. 6X)= 9.38.17 < .O l . l.,lst, the within-school and thc clotside schrir~l groups exhibited ii different pattern of cl~:inpc in GP.4. F( I. 86) = 6.03, p < .Oj. In sum. the= firtdinfs suggest tliat advisor prosam effects hiled oipersist o\.c~- the second year of junirir lhiph school. These results regard~ng group differences in patterns of change iuc none- theless important evidence that group difterences :a Time 2 wcrc not simply regression to the me:m effects exhihited by tlie pl-r,grnm ~ o u p .

Program Experiences and Students' Adjustment

To undcrst;~ntl students' experiences in the program ;IS well ar h e prcigri~m-relatecl lactcirs that may have :~I'IL-ctecl 5tudents' n~ljustrnent ; ~ t Time 2, descriptive statistics wcre calculated to document students' and

Indiv idual differences in program experiences. In tlie Time 2 survey. the ma-iorily o f students lh3%,) reported having contact with their advisors at least once a week. Fourteen percent reported that they had contact with their advisors once or twice a month. A t the other end of the spectrum, 16% of students reported seeing

their advisors less than once a month, and 7% repnrted never seeing their advisors. O f those who reported seeing their advisors. students reported spending 35 min. on average with their advisors per week. Advisnrs' reports o f the frequency [ i f contact suggested that. of those advisors wlio completed a log (11 = 12). 78% met witli their students at least once a week.

Results from analyses of both students' and advi- sors' logs indicated that studcntsand advisors discussed a range o f topics: they were most likely to discuss students' school activities and peer relationships and least likely to discuss students' ron~nntic relationships or pliysical and mental health issues. Advisors reported initiating a variety 01' activities with students, including crafts (e.g.. tie-dyeing t-shirts). skill-building activities (e.g., decision making. leadership skills). and outings (attending sports events. pizL:i parties).

Findinzs from rtodents' l i~gs revealed that. in gen- eral, students perceived their advisors ;IS s~imewh;~t warrn (M = 3.57 nn a 5-point scale. with high scores indicating high advisorwarmth). Students whoreported more contact with their advisors in the Time 2 survey also reported grealer advisor warmth i n the student-nd- visorrelationsliip(1.=.57,p< OI 1. Inadditinn, stlrdcnts who repnrted tIt:it their i~dvisnr was also onc of their

1 - Experimental 1 Group ! Within-School 1 -' Control I I . . . Outside-School Control

7 1 Pre- Post- One Year Treatment Treatment Follow-up

Fikwrc 2. Students' lcelin~s of deprcrsion in lhc t~rhun onmmunih.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Pi~urc 3. I'alh ntodcl olprorrrr;cs explaining

te:rhers reported significantly greater advisor w;~rn i~h in their relationship than (lid studcnls wl ir~se advisrir was not one ol' their teachers. F( 1 . SO) = 5.63, p < .(IS (A4.c = 63.88 and 53.69, respectivelyl.

Advisors generally had positive experiences in tlie program (M = 4.08 rin a 5-priint scale): they also rc- ported t11;lt several factors intluenced the program's success. I n particular, the ma,j!jority ofadvix i rs reported that students who were interested. friendly, talked eas- ily. and who were easy to talk to f ici l i tated the pro- gram's ruccess. Most :~dvisairs also reported that corn- milmcnt to hclping students (i.c.. ihllruirtic motives) and similarity o f interests hetwcen [lie stt~dent and :~dvisor tbsteretl n successft~l program. I:innlly. advisors re- ported that a number olstructurnl cli;~racteristics f i c i l i - tated thc prnfroni's succcss: seeing students outside o f

. . ,I\ses, receivingadequntc tr:~ining. and havinp <upport f~-ont bnlh the atllninistrntion and lel lnw teachers.

P rog ram experiences a n d ind iv idua l differences in sh~dents ' adjustment. Regression an:llyses wcre conducted to asses? hot11 rlirect ;~nd indirect p:~rhw:~ys 111 indi\,idu:hl dili'erences i n a?justmcnt aliloltf studenls in tlie program group. As indictated in Figure 3, time spent will1 ;idvisiir w;~s founil to he indirectly related to students' en~joynient of extracurricular activitiec. The eH'ect n l t ime spent with ndvisnr was mcdi:~red hy \tudenrs' perceptions 11i' t l ~ e degree rii;t(lvisrw warmth. The i~nalyses also indici~tcd that pirls spent inore time \r.ith their advis~irs. dcvelopcd warlner reletinn\liips. and en,jt>yed exlr;~curricul:~r ;olivitics mnrc I~;III did boys. (Bcc:~use the rtudcnt-:~dvisor pairs wcre all com- p~isutl 01' s;ime-sex pairs, liowevcr, i t is imprissihlc to tell u,l~elIier this finrline ir due in [he stutlcnts' sex. tlhe ;~rlvisorc' sex. or s e cornposition o f the student-:~dvi- sur dyads.) Students' pretest retires ol i extr;~currict~l;~r enjoy~nsnt ;11si1 were directly related to studentr' post- lest scrrrrs. indicating that a pnrtinn of thc students' ~iutcr imc scores wn5 esplained hy lhnw much the). en- joyed exlr;~curricul;~r :~ct i \~it ics pricrr lrr the prngram.

I'rngr;rn~-rel:~ted k~ctors wcre not associated with inclividunl tliffercnccs in ;my ntller :Ireus <if students' ;~c;tdeniic I l ~ n c t i n n i ~ ~ g : rather. students' lunclioninf ;I!

'Time 1 :~ccriuntcd for i n ~ l i ~ i d u : ~ l ~lil'lerences in i'unc- tioning at T ime 2. In tlic psycl ioIogi~:~l ;in11 psycl~nvr~- c ~ ; ~ l do~n ; l ~~ i s . i~nd ings ills,, reveilled that incliviilual difference\ i n psycIiol~rgic;~l wcll-bein: and prychn%o-

cia1 maturity were explained by students' l i~nctir ining at 'Simc 1 rather than hy prng!.:~n-relate(1 I':~ctors.

summa^ of Results

Findings indic:hted t l i ;~t the progr:~m grnup reportcd fre:lter extr:~curricul;~r a~.tivity ctiir~yrnenl th;ln ( l id either the \r,i!liin-suhotrl or outside-school coritrril groups. Al ier cnntrnll ing bir c ~ i v a r i i ~ l ~ s . gruu1) diffCr- encec also entcrfed between the prr>pr:lrn and i~ulsidc- school control groups i n hot11 deprchsilrn 2nd (;PA, u ~ i r l ~ the prcifrarn group reporling more p r~r i t i ve sccrrcs. (irnup (liffcrcnccs he~ween lhe t\vo ccrntrol groups in GI'A, however. suggested tIi:~t the 1:llter ei'lect ~ 3 s

p r r ~ h ~ h l y due t n ccliur~l-rel;~ted lactnrs. Process d i l t i~ intlici~ted th;~f the majority o ls t~~<lents tlnd

nd\,isor met regularly. Both students and :alvisorr rcporicd th:~t personal and structurr~l cli;~r;~ctcri\tics h~cilit:~tctl the success ol' [lie ;~~lv ih<x proprilln. lnclivi~lu:~l dii'krenceh emerzetl w i l l ~ i n thc prrlernni group: i n particular. hot11 the qu:lnlity (i.c.. I'rctluc~~c). n l co~ l l ; ~c t l :lnd qu:111ty 11.c.. per- cci\,ecl :alvisor w:11nnl111 01 \tudent-;~dvirnr contact wcrr rclntetltosti~tlen~s' c l l i r~y~ncnl oleulracun-iculi~r:lclivilics.

Study 2 : School Advisor Program in :I R u r a l C n n l n ~ u n i t y

Sample

I';~rticipantr for the scc~>tid Schuiil hclvi\i ir l ' ro f ra~i~ incltlrled I 1 X ci;hth~:rradc sludcnts \\hi> I ~ v e < l in ;I \111:1ll

r11ra1 c n n i t ~ ~ u n i ~ y 111 cc11tr;11 P c n n r y l x ~ n i : ~ : i r i i I ~ I I O :I!- Icndetl one o f tu,s> ~ t ~ ~ i i r ~ r - s e ~ ~ i t > r lh~gl i s c l ~ n < > l ~ iCirirde5 7-12) in l l ~ e r:hnlc %cli<iol <listri~.t. Sli~htl!; Innre than one I i ;~ l fn l '~hc \;~n~ple were hoys r5?%1. Student% were ~ i ia in ly Whitc iV2Vl . \vil l i o sm i~ l l prrcentilge nI'N;hti\c Americ;tn (7% 1 :~nd Hisp:~nic ( I? , ) ctudcnlr. 'I'lic III;I- iority oi'\tudcn~s indic;~ted tI1a1 their p:lrenls were l i i fh \chc>nl gr:~duntc\ (86':; ): :I c~nallcr pnrporlion inilicotctl ~II;I~ their parents Ih:al srinlc c(lt~c;lt~on he!'ond 111fl1 rcl~rrnl ( ? X ' i ) or were collcgc :r,lclu:~ttb ( Z l ' l r ) .

Fnny-hevcn ;hilvirors pa111ci~;rleil in tlrc propr;lm, l l i e m;!iority ;~clvi<nr\ usere \volneli t hl)'# 1. u,cre mar l - i~d r8(1%). ;~nc wcre s : ~ t i ~ l i c ~ l wi lh tlicir j<>h.: (hf = i . 7 on :I sci~ le i r r i~n I t~17)~1enuh11her~rlycarr:1~lv1sr~r~11:111lil~flll r:~npecl i r t i ~ n I to3 I yc;1r%. wi lh [lie 111edian eq11;1l I r r X ye:a-s.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

EVALUATION OF SCHOOL ADVISOR PROGRAMS

Approximatelv one fourth of advisors (27%) taught eighth-grade claqses and one half (48%) taught seventh- grade classes.

Design

As with the first community. a quasi-experimental comparison group design was used to evaluate the program (Cook & Campbell. 1979; Rossi & Freen~an. 1993). Students participated i n either: ( I ) a qfiosi-e.$-- pcrin~crrtal group (11 = 77) who received a 20-week program i n which student-advisor pairs formally met on a biweekly basis and infornlally met weekly 1e.g.. said hello in hall) or (2) a conrporiao,r group (11 = I I ) who did not participate in a School Advisor Program. Because the program was offered only in one school. all eighth-grade students in the school with the advisor program composed the quasi-experimental group; stu- dents from a second school ( in which no advisor pro- gram was offered) composed the comparison group.

Attrition rates were estimated lo assess differential ami- tion across program and cornpaison groups: no significant differences in atbition were found hetween the two groups.

Design of the Schnol Advisor Program

Advisors in this program were assigned I to 5 stu- dents of the same sex. The advisor program took place during the spring semester (approximately 4 months) of students' eighth-grade school year i n one o f two jun- ior-senior high schools in the district. (Needs assess- ment data revealed that this group o f students exhibited the most prohlematic level o f functioning.) Advisors wereexpected tonieet with students individually ( 10-15 minutes o f one-on-one time) twice a month during their study halls ~ i r lunch hours and more informally (a few minutes i n the hall,cafeteria,orclassrwm~ with students once a week to discuss academic and personal issues.

Procedure

Students co~npleted surveys assessing their academic experiences. psychological well-being. and psychoswial maturity at the end of their seventh- (Time I ) and eighth- griitle (Time 2) school years. The Time 2 survey also fixused on studen~q' experiences in the School Advisor Program. Both students and teachers completed process logs throughout the program to document their expen- ences in and perceptions o f the program. In addition. teachers completed a survey at the end of the program that a~sessed their overall expriences with the program.

Measures

With the exception o f school-recorded grades (which were not ava~lable),aIl of the measures that were used to evaluate the program in the urban community

also were used to evaluate this program. Students' GPAs were calculated hased on students' reports o f their grades in English. math. social studies, and sci- ence. (Data from the urban school revealed correlations o f .R4 and .89 hetween self-reported grades and school records at Time I and Time?. respectively).

Results

Overview of Analyses

The plan of analysis was similar to that employed in Study 1. First. a series o f repented measures ANOVAs was conducted to assess between-group changes i n functioning over time. Both main effects for Time and Time x Group interactions were examined to sec whether students' well-being changed across the tran- sition to junior high school and whether these changes differed for the program and control grtlups. Second. ANCOVAs were calculated to see whether differences found between groups could be explained by f;ictors otlier than group membership. One-tailed tests o f sig- nilicance were en~ployed hecause i t was predicted that students i n the program group would report riiore posi- tive outcomes at Time 2 than would students i n the comparison group. Finally. to assess whether the pro- gram was implemented as planned. descriptive tat is- tics were calculnted to estimate the degree oi'variability i n students' and advisors' proprani experiences.

Changes Over T ime i n Students' Functioning

Findings reveilled significa~n din'erences over time in all areas o f academic adjustment (see Table 2). Similarly to the results in the urban cominunity. stu- dents' reported GPA and school and extracurricular activity enjoy~nentdecreased F( I. 1 12) =10.74.p< .(I I. F(l. 114)=4.2R,p<.05.and1;(1.94)=5.h.1.p<.05. respectively. No significant differences were h u n d in perceived scholastic competence. I n the areaofpsycho- logical adjustment. students' reports of thcir miscon- duct increased. F( 1 . 115) = 16.94, p < .l)l; however. no significant changes in depression or general self-worth were reported. Last, in the area of psychosocial matur- ity, students' repnrts o f work ethic declined. F ( I .I 15) = 6. Ih. p < .Ol . hut there was no significant change in students' identity development.

Program Impact: Group Differences in Studenb' Adjustment

Preliniinary analyses revealed that students in the program and comparison groups signiticsntly differed on a number o f measures at Time I 1e.g.. depression. GPA. perceived scholastic competence. general self-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

GRAHAM. UPDEGHAFF. TOMASCIK. R MrHALE

worth, misconduct). with students in the program school scoring more negatively in all areas.Tocompen- sate for the nonequivalency o f groups. pretest scores were entered as covariates i n between-goup analyses.

Academic adjustment. Two Time x Group in- teractions cmcrged from the ANOVAs. First, program students reported n smaller decline i n GPA than did contrnl group students, F( I . 115) = 5.51. p < .05. Second, whereas hoth groups increased in perceived scholastic competence. students in the control group reported a larger increase. F( I. 108) = 3.82, p < .05. ANCOVAs revealed a similar pattern o f findings, with program students continuing to repon smaller declines in GPA and control students reporting greater increases in perceived scholastic competence. F(5. I l l j = 5.75. /I< .05 and F ( 5 , 104) =5.07,p< .05, respectively. after pretest scores were entered.

Psychological adjustment Findings revealed two Time x Group interactions, with the program group re- pirt ing a significantly greater increase in depression and misconduct, F(I, 11.5) = 3.95, p < .05 and F( I , 115) =

Tahle 2. U,znrljsrvd Means rrnd Srrrnd~nl iIc~'ifr1io11s for

Slrcdettr hmcrionUrg hy Group,Ji~r I l lc Rr~rul Comfnunil~~'

Time l Timc 2 Re l rc r lmen l Posltr~atmenl

Otlteome M SD M SD

Ex~ncunicul;u~Enjnymenl Pragr.lsl 3.21 11.77 2.98 0.86 Conlrol 3 . U 0.55 3.23 (1 84

Overdll School Enioymml Pmgnm 2.68 1.00 2.31) I . r X I

Cunlrul 2 65 1.23 2.49 1.00 GPA (Sell-Reponedl

Pmgmm 4.16 0.47 3 94 1174 Conlnrl 4.30 0.53 3.84 OX9

Perceived Schol;r?t~c Conlpetenr~.

Program 1.(Y I1 h!l 2 9 4 0.59 Conlrol 7.07 O h4 3.15 n64

De~rcs~ ion Prnenrrl 7.27 0.14 8.97 7.74

Conlrnl 5.71 4l14 440 4.00 Geni-ml Self-Wonh

Pmgnln 297 I lhl 2.87 0.69

Conlrol 2.26 0.49 7.27 057 Misconducl

Prognlt? ZOdh h Oh 25.17 X r l l Conlrnl 23.211 6.17 23.01 4.28

Work Ethic Propnnb 2.99 0.511 2.8? 0.43 Conlrul ? 96 0.55 ? 8 X 0.51

Irlcnuly Progrnol 7 17 0 4 8 3 l n n 511 Conlrol 3.15 (J511 3 35 (1.40

"HiFh scorns inrlico~e htghcr lcvr ls of lhc conqlrucl.

19.87, p < . O I , respectively. These differences persisted after controlling for the covariates. F(5, 90) = 7.98, p < .01 andF(5. I I1 )=5.75,11<.05: inaddition.asignificant difference favoring the control group emerged for gen- eral self-wonh. F(5. IO6)=3.90.p< .O5. aftercovariates were added to the analyses.

Psychosocial adjustment. N o Time x Croup in- teractions emerged for either work ethic or identity development. The two groups did differ on identity development after the covariates were added, with the control group reporting higher levels o f identity devel- opment at Time 2. F(5. 109) = 10.50. p < .OI

Program Experiences and Students' Adjustment

Descriptive statistics were estimated to documenl students' and advisnrs' experiences in tlie program. Kegression analyses wereconducted toexplain individ- ual differences in adjustment at Time 2 for GPA. the outcome in which the program group reported better functioning at Time 2.

Individual differences in program experiences. I n contrast to the experiences of students in the urban community, in which 63% o f students saw their advi- sors at l e ~ ~ ~ t once a week, only 29% of students in thc rural community's School Advisnr Progmni !net with their advisors at least once a week. Eighteen percent of students i n this community reported meeting with their advisors once or twice a month. 33% reported seeing their advisors birnonthly, and 20% indicated ne18er hav- ing met with lheir advisors.

Similarly to the ilrhan community. students were most likely to discuss school-related issues i ~ n d leasl likely to diqcuss persunal topics. Hccause students and advisrirs mct on a one-on-one hais, however, their meetings were discussion rather than activity based. With respect to advisor warmth. students' average rat- ing was below the midpoint on tlie scale (M = 2.97 on n 5-point scale). Students who reported more cont:rct with their advisors. however. perceived greater i~dvisor warmth ( r = .26.11< 05) : in addition, students who had contact with their advisors outside o f t l ie regular school day 1e.g.. through sports, cluhs. neighborhood contacts) reported significantly higher adv~sr~r warmth. F( I. 61) = 8.94, p < ,111 (Ms = 57.14 and 44.84, respectively).

Advisors' repons oftheir program experiences were neutral to pusitive ( M = 3.51 on sc;~le frorii 1 t0 5). Advisors indicated i t nunihcr nf characteristics that either t i c i l i t ~ ted or detracted from a successful pro- gram: in particular. the majority o1';alvisors fell that thc presence 01' interested and friendly students who talked easily was important for aprograni to he successful. In

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

EVALUATION OF SCHOOL ADVISOR PROGRAMS

addition, advisors indicated that adequate training and support from fellow teachers and administrators fos- tered the program's success. I n contrast, themajority of advisors reported that work pressure and othercommit- ments hindered the success of a program.

Program experiences and individual differences in students' adjustment. Regression analyses were conducted to assess whether students' GPAs varied as a function o f program experiences. Neither frequency of contact nor perceived advisor warmth were related to students' GPAs atTime 2. A second set o f regression analyses was conducted to examine whether other meawres of students' adjustment (e.g.. school and ex- tracurricular activity enjoyment, depression, self- wnrth. etc.) may have varied as a function o f program experiences rather than group membership. Neither frequency of contact nor perceived advisor warmth predicted individuals' functioning at Time 2 for any of these outcomes.

Summary of Results

Results indicated that whereas students in the pro- gram group performed better in terms of CPA, students reported similar or more negative functioning than did the cotnparison group in a l l other areas. Process data indicated thatonly a minority ofstudents met regularly with their advisors. In addition, individual differences in program experiences were not related to students' outcomes at Time 2.

Discussion

At the most general level. the results o f this study revealed changes over time in students' functioning that mirror the "normative" declines noted by previous re- searchers (e.g., Haladyna & Thomas. 1979: Petersen, 1985: Simmons & Blyth. 1987). Specifically. adoles- cents tiom hoth the urban and rural communities stud- ied reported less enjoyment of school and extracurricu- laractivities. exliihi~ed declines in GPA and workethic. and evidenced increases in misconduct.

Eccles and colleagues (Eccles & Midgley. 1989; Eccles et al.. 1993) argued that negative changes in early adolescence are due to a poor f i t hetween adoles- cents' developmental needs and the characteristics o f the~rjunior high school environments. Declines that the adolescents in these (and other) samples have reported m significant hoth because o f what they mean for adolescents' current well-being, but also because of their implications for adjustment and success in later life. Dryfoos (1990). in her analysis of adolescents' prohle~n behaviors, found that students' grades, atti-

tudes toward school, and overall conduct were rnajor predictors of school failure and dropout: furthermore. she found that students who did poorly in school or who dropped out o f school were more likely to have long- term health, employment. and econotnic problems.

The theory underlying the School Advisor Program was that the program would facilitate the development of close, supportive relationships between adolescents and adults in the school setting. These relationships would help students to feel inore connected to the school environment (Eccles & Midgley. 10K9: Eccles et al.. 1993). In turn, students would be more likely to report greater enjoyment in academic-related activities. to perform better in school, to feel better about them- selves, and to exhibit greater psychosocial maturity.

Assessment of between-group differences in the ur- ban community revealed that the program and control groups differed in the areas o f extracurricular activity enjoyment. GPA, and depression. Although a portion of the group differences among students in the urban community may beattributabletoschooleffects. almost without exception. the pattern of results indicated that the program group reported the most positive function- ing, followed by the within-school control group and then by theoutside-school control group, suggesting that both program and school-related factors contributed to students' well-being. Although the observed school ef- fects may be due to characteristics of the larger school environment that had positive implications lor hoth the program and within-school control group, anecdotal evidence suggests that a "contamination effects" inter- pretation also is possible. Discussions with school per- sonnel revealed. for example. that the advisor program was so popular among the seventh-grade students (hat those who were assigned to the control group occasion- ally attended advisor meetings along with their friends.

The findings suggested that between-group differ- ences in the urban community emerged in the areas most proximally related to the program. In theacademic domain, the program group differed from the two con- trol groups on extracurricular activity enjoyment: in contrast. the three groups did not differ on overall school enjoyment or on perceived scholastic contpe- tence. Group differences in extracurricular activity en- .ioyment most likely reflect students' enjoyment of the program because the program was an extracurricular activity. Overall school enjoyment and perceived scho- lastic competence were measures of enjoytnent o f and competence i n school as a whole and as such, they were lesslikely to beaffected than wasextracurricularactivity enjoyment. In the area o f psychological well-being, the program group differed from the two control groups on depression (a measure of mood) but ncit on general self-worth (a relatively stahle self-perception) or con- duct (a measure o f mostly out-of-school problem behav- iors over the past year). Lal. the three groups did not differ on any measures o f psychosocial maturity, the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

GRAHAM. UPDEGRAFF. TOMASCIK. k MrllALE

domain th i t was most disml to the advisor program. Taken together. these findings suggest that the urban community's Sclioc~l Advisor Prograni. by increasing extracurricularactivity enjoyment and helping students to feel more optimistic about their lives, accomplished the first step i n keeping studentsconnected tothe school environment. The fact that the advisor program took place for a period of only 4 months suggests that this kind ofexperience--expanded to include tl~eentire first year or first two years ofjunior high school-may he a potentially powerful form o f intervention at this devel- opmental period.

Process data collected throughout the program en- abled us to determine whether these programs were implemented as intended and to explore what aspects o f tlie programs were linked to stutlents' outcomes. Informatir~n gathered from both students and advisors in the urban community revealed that the program was implemented as intended, with a majority 01' students reporting almost weekly contact with their advisors. The nature o f students' interactions with their advisors. including the frequency o f their interactions and the affective quality o f their relationships, was examined further to explore the links between program experi- ences and students' outcomes. The results o f these analyses indicated that, with respect to outcomes found todifferbetween groups (extracurricularactivity enjoy- ment, grades. and depression), students' program expe- riences were related only to individual differences ill extracurricular activity enjoyment. Not surprisingly, a warm student-advisor relationship. as compared with one i n which the student and advisor did not experience feelings of closeness, was more likely to facilitate stu- dents' program en.joyment. I n sum, in this urban com- munity, the School Advisor Program appeared to he one way to improve the match between the needs o f young adolescents and the char;tcreristics of their school envl- mnments. By keeping students who recently experi- enced a transition to junior-senior high scliool con- nected with the school system by the student-advisor relationship. students may be buffered from declines typically noted during this transition period (Eccles, et al., 1993; Simmons& Blyth. 1987).

The experiences o f program pnrticipants in the rural setting differed considerably t iom those o f students and advisors in tlie urban community. First. very few be- tween-group differences in student functioning emerged in this community. Whereas students in the program group reported s~naller declines in their GPAs. examination o f their psychological and psychosocial fi~nctjoning revealed no group differences or differ- ences favoring students in tlie contrnl group. The over- all pattern ofresults suggested that, in the rural comtnu- nity. the School Advisor Program did not have a positive impact on student functioning. Process data also su~gested that, although advisors and students were supposed to meet on a weekly b;~sis. more than

half o f the students reported l i t t le or no regular contact with their :ldvis~~rs. I n thts rum1 setting. the School Advisor Prograt~i was not implemented as planned, and students in the treatment schonl did not benefit from program panicipation. l i e fact that advisors were ex- pected to meet weekly ulith students hut did not actually do so may have hnd negative implications for students.

Examining proFam differences in implementation and structure. given that programs were adapted to the specific needs and opportunities o f each community setting, may explain why the program was successful in the urban but not the rural community and highlight key decision points in the program i~nplementation process. One potentially irnp~~rtnnt development;~l considerntion was the timing (IT the School Advisor Progr;lm. In the urh:~n community. the program p.micipants included seventh-grade students who h a d j ~ ~ s t made the transition to junior-senior high school. I n the rural program. eighth-grade students were targeted for intervent~on efhrts hecause they had performed more poorly than did other groups on an earlier needs assessment. It may he that youth are most sensitive to intervention early in the prncess [ i f their ad.justmm1 to their new schnnl envir(11iments. n y thc eighth grade. hehxvior patterns and attitudes toward scliot~l and teachers may already he fairly u~e l l estahlislied and much harder to ch:tnpe. In this rural cr~rnmunity. student behavior patlerns and attitudes acquired in the first ye:u ofjunior-senior high school may lhave decreased eighth gr:lde students' in- clination to establish personal relatinnships with their school advisors.

A second potenlially impnrtant factor concerns the form;~t~on itnd scheduling of student-advisor meetings. In the urban setting, ~tudents pirrticipated in sm:lll- group activities (eg., 5-7 students and their advisor). which occurred dur~ng weekly activify period.; and af- ~erscliool hours. B o ~ h the struclure [ i f tlie school day. includingitcommon free period forall staffand sludents. and the fact that niost students lived within walking distance ofthe school made group activities fcasihle. I n the rural environment. bus schedules and long com- mutes restricted program activities to tlie regularschool (lay. Furtherniore, there were no conlliion activity peri- ods during the day for advisors to meet with ztudcnts~ Thus, the structure o f the school day and the transpor- tation demands that characteri~e rural settings dictated the nature o f the School Advisor Prc~grr~m: in this case. advisor-student contact was limited to one-on-one en- counters during study hillls or lunch periods. Such brief interactions may have made it difficult for advisors and students to form nicaningful relationqhips: initially awk- ward or unenjoyahle meetings. in turn, may lhave re- duced hothstudents'and advisors' motivati~~nstopursue future contacts. 11 is worth noting that this tinding-that tlie group-orienfed student-advisor program was more sucressfirl than the jndividual-orienred program-goes against conventional wisdom that individually-focused

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

EVALUATION OF SCHOOL ADVISOR PROGRAMS

intervention p r o F a m s should have a greater impact on

psychological functioning.' Given that adolescence is a

developmental period when youth are becoming more

peer-oriented (Brown, 1990). however. a program that

includes age mates may have maxirnal appeal.

Last, differences i n advisor recrui tment i n the t w o

communit ies may have been l inked t o program success.

I n the larger urban school setting, teachers volunteered

t o serve as advisors t o i ncoming students. These teach-

ers (11 = IS) represented a select group o f h igh ly mo t i -

vated individuals w h o indicated that their involvement

i n the progranl was pr imar i ly altruistic (Graham et al.. 1994). I n the rural communi ty , teachers, ;tdrninistratnrs,

and school staf f were approached h y guidance counsel-

ors w h o solicited their involvement i n the School Ad- v i s t ~ r Program. A l l hough a larger n u m h e r o f i ~ ~ d i v i d u a l s

01 = 47) agreed t o serve as advisors. these individuals

reported peer pressure as a common reason for partici-

pat ion i n tl ie program (Updegraf fe t al.. 1994). The lack

o f intrinsic Interest among advisors incornb inat ion w i t h

logistical issues o f t h e school structure (i.e., nocomtnon

act iv i ty per iod o r aftersch<iol t ime) seems to have hin-

dered successful program implementation.

I n surn, differences between the t w o programs i n

t ~ m i n g (seventh vs. e ighth grade). structur ing and

schedul ing o fadv isn r meetings, and recrui tment strate-

gies may have been responsible fo r differences i n

prnpram implementat ion. Differences it1 program i m -

plenientatinn. I n turn. may exp la in differences i n stu-

dent outcomes across the t w o communit ies. 11 i s i m -

portant however, that such a conclusion be seen :IS

tentative, g i ven the confounds inherent i n the design

nf this research.

At the most general level. our work suggests tIi;tt

issues o f f i t arise at anumher o f levels i n youth-oriented

progr;lmming. W i t h respect t o "stage-envirnnmmt fit"

(Eccles & Midge ly . 198'1). the results o f this research

suggeql that a School A d v i s ~ i r Program can effect ively

meet some of tlie developmental needs o f young adoles-

cents w h o iue tnaking the transition t o jun ior h igh

school. Cmss-community comparisons o f h o w the

School Advisor Program was implemented and h o w

we l l il workei l also highl ighted the significance-and

tlie ~~~~~~~~~~~~~if f i t t ing developmenk~l ly sensitive

youth programs to the constraints of p a r t ~ c u l m commu-

nit? settings. Reseluchers have hu i l t a suhstantinl body

of research about what k inds o f experiences can work

l o enhance adolescent development and human devel-

opment more general ly. W h a t we seem t o k n o w less

ahnut i s h o w l o pu t our knowledge t o work-in real

w o r l d settings. Understanding and overcoming the demands of knowledge applicirt ion m a y he the next

challenge for developmental research.

'we thank an itnonymnur ruvlcwer for hringing this ivrur tn our ottcntinn

References

Rickman. L. (19871 The functions ufpn>pramlheary. In L. Rickman (Erl.). us in^ pmCnztn ideon' in ~~~rrlurrlirrn. New, rlireclrrnn f i r ,

pm~wrn e#,tlu,m,>,r lpp. 5-1')). Snn Fnncisco: Josaey-Rau Bmnlenhrcnncr. Ll. 11970). Tltr r<olr~fis ,f humon rlei.elnpn!r,ir:

E.tperi,ttetnlrir~ nrrnm undl~yderrgt,. Cambridge. MA: Hward Llniversily Press.

Bmwn. 13. R. 119901. Pmrgroups and peer cultures. In S Fcldmnn k G. K. Elliol (&is ). Ar rbr rbr.rrbr81~1 Tit<, ~ < , I : P ~ I ~ O I P ~ ~ ~ l , , k n ~ w ~ l

Ipp. 171-196). Cnrnhridge. MA: Hmard University I'ress. Chrn. H. T. i 19901 71won.-drive,~ u~.nhrrrrinn. Nuwhury Park. CA:

Sage. Chcn. H. T.. R. Rosri. P. M. (19871 Evnluaung w ~ l h Eense: The

lhcory-driven approach. Ev<tla~rirrn RYI.IPII. 7. 283-302. Conk.T. D., k Cmnpkll. 0.T. 11979) Qarrr,-erprrintr,~r~~f!<~~z: Desipn

owl rumly.~is i.~.vrrr.~ji~r,/ield rerrinf.~, Chicago: Rand McNally. Dryioos. J. G. (1990) Adnlesc~nrr er risk: Pruvir1orr.e o,sl l>r?vpr?~

lirtrr. New York Oxford Llnivenily Press. Ecclrc. J S.. k Rarkr. R. (19901. R,.rl;u bebavtrrr mrurltre. Ilnpuh-

lislled scale. Llnlvcrsity of Michigan Eccles. J. S.. S: Midgluy. C. (198'11 Stage-environment fir: I>r\,rlop~

mentally appropriate classroom^ for young adalesccnts In C Anws 6; K. Arne? 1Eds.l. t7rwon.k irri ,n,#lr,v,irrr,t r,! edac.<,a<rri. L'rrl -1. Gncrl.~ uric1 cr,xnirirlns l p p 179-186). Sm 1)irpo. CA Acodrnlir

Eccles. J. S . Midgley. C.. Wigfield. ,\.. Huchanan. C M.. Reumnn. 0,. Flanngan. C.. 6; Mar Ivcr, I) r19L13) Drvclopmcnt during adolcscsnce: The impact of rtage~nvironmcnt ftt on young i~dolcsccntr' erpericncrs in rchrmls and in iamilicr. Anurrt.ilri Pr~rh,,lrn,qirr. 48. [JW I0 I

Elliott. C. R.. S. Feldman. S. S. II'JYOL. Csptt~rlng ihc adolcrcrnl enpcricncc In G. R. Elliou R. S. S k l d m w IEds ). Ar rhr lbr<~rkold: 171e dn.rl,rptrrp adrrlesc.etir (pp t-I?). Cnrnhridp. MA: H;twnrd Llniverrily Presc.

Caldherg, M. F. 110831 Haurcgrnup: A guidsnceroie ~orlhctcar.hrr. In C Hosr IEdl. Curr,culun~ plriri,!mp A rieir ol,l,rnor-R lpp 519-522) Roston: Allyn &i Ucon.

(;rahn~n. J. E . Updrpraff. K A . Tamascrk. C A. Rakur. A E.. Oki<lallah. D A.. Mnnlovr. E. 6 . . I.utka\. I.. M.. LC MrMsls.S. M. I I9951 An einl,ro,rrn r,frzrlolrrrrrrr ,mil odviro, ~ t p e ~ t c n r r r in r r ~~ . l tno i udrnnr l>mpn>,n: Rpnrlrr r r r lit? U'~lle.v~!3r,rrc, crrucr ~ ~ . h ~ ~ t l l d r . v f r i ~ ~ l Untversily Park P~nnsyl~ania Stntc Llnivrnity. I~cpmrnent of Human Drvelonrncnl and Familv Sludir.

Crrmhergrr. E.. k Bond. L. I19R41 l ! r c r ' . ~ n ~ ~ ~ n s ~ r I , f i , r rhrp,yvch,,.~~~- <in1 ,rmrarm. in!,e,trr,n. Unpuhllshed n~muscript. Llnivcn~ty ol' California nl Itvine.

Hllodyns T.. k Thomas. G. 119791. The allitutlcs n i clen~rnlnrv cchuul children Toward school md auhjrcr rnmterc T11e Jrrumul o l 'E~~ ,ur i , t t~~n le I r d w o l i r r ~ . 4R. I F 2 3

Ii:~millun. S F . k Darling, N. (I9891 hlrntors in adolc*rcnl<' lircr. In K. lkltwrclnmnn ~t F Lo<el 1Edx.I. 7 . 1 ~ .vo,.,~tl w,~rkI 01 r,d,t-

1e.rcenr~. l n f c r ~ ~ ~ r r i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l / ~ ~ ~ . ~ , ~ ~ ~ r t r ~ . ~ . HcrIin: Wal~cr dc Gmy~er. l ~ lon~ i l l ~~n , S. F., & lPan~ilt<>n, M. A t lCJ9O) l.!rckttt~ up: Fi!u,l rty!,trf

,*I r r nlenlnriti,ypmprorn lr,r?,rerh. Unpublished rrpon. Corncll Ilnivmiry.

Haner. S. 1 IOH5). Mre~irnl/,,r rhe .selFp~n-cpt~or> pr,rlilc li,rc-hikbrrt. Llnpuhliabcd tnanuccript. Lln~versity o i Dcn\,cr.

Himch. R. J.. DuRois. I). L. lIL)Y1 1. Sclf.cstccm in rmly adolcs- rcncc: Thc idanlificalion and p~dlrtiz,n olcontrilqting longilu~ dmal lr;~,irctorirs.J~rsntnl,rfY,~rih ~, , !dArl~zlrscc~n~~~, 20. 53-72.

Jurs. S. G.. k Clnrr. G. V (19711. The efiecr or expcrimenlal InorIal~t). an lhc lntcrnnl and rntrmal vnlidily oilhe r;mrlomi,crl cumparalive rxpenlacnt. Jr,umui of LI1-/1~rr,n~nhrl I.dz,~dlio,i. 40, f>Z<,h.

K o v ~ ~ c s . M. 11981 I. Tl,ccl~il~frert ' .~deprc.~sio,~ tt8vrrtro,,. ,I ,ve l / - r~~r~, l ~ I ~ ~ i ~ w r r i o r ! r c n l ~ ~ / r ~ r a l ~ o n l - r r ~ r ) r r ~ ~ ~ ~ y r r e ~ . Unp~lhlirhed inanu~ scrirt. tlni\,rrsit? of Pittshur~h School of h4rilicinc

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

GRAHAM. UPIIEGRAFF. TOMASCIK. & MrHA1.E

McHalc. S. M.. Crourer. A. C.. Fcnnelly. K.. Tomascik. C A . Llpdcpmff. K. A.. Graham. J. E.. Raker. A. E.. I>riesbach. L.. Ferry. N.. Manlovc. E. E.. McGrodcr. S. M.. Malkcen. P.. K. Oheidallh. I). A. (19961. Community-hmctl intcrventionr fvr young adolescenls: Thc Pcnn Statc PRIDE Pro~ject. J,rtm,,,l a/

Rrieurrb un A , I ~ , l ~ n e , i r ~ , 6. 2F36. Mcl-lale. S. M.. Tomascik. C.. 0hcidall;ih. D.. Hakcr. A . Gmham.

I.. Herglund. J.. Manlovc. E.. McGrndcr. S.. X: Llpdcgmff. K. (1993). Ilrperienr.er vrtd wrll-bei~ly: of Wilker-Bnrr~ A r m School Dis1rir.r l ~ c , ~ ~ l r r r r . Llniversity Pnrk: Pennsylvania State Univrrsity. Departmen1 oi Hunlnn l)cvclopmenl and Family Studies.

Pcppanl. I. (1901 1. Pr,rmirin,g pnzrr1r.r~ o,ld pn,,qn,n,r/ilr rhr rntd- dl?-level pnrder (Hullelin No. L114YSl Modison: Wisconsin Srnte Depalmenr of Puhlic Instruction.

Pcrcrsen. A. C. (1985) Puhcrtal devclupmcnt as a cause ofdistur- bance: Myths. real~tics. and unenrwrrcd questions. (iunrlir. S,,c,ciol. and Gr r~r ru l Prycl~r , lo~y Morr,,pnip/tr. I l l . 205-?1?,

Ilossi. P. H . & Frcemm. H. E. 119931 Evlalaurir,n. A .v.rn~mnrir upp~,ur .h Newhury Park, CA: Sage

Rovine. M.. & von Eyr. A. (1990) Cr>rnpr,irr iIlurr,n~inns orrrrrlir-

ricul r ~ ~ ~ r l ~ ~ ~ ~ l . ~ l r ~ r ~ ~ i r o ~ l ~ ~ ! ~ / re.~et~r<,l! , Sm Diego, CA: Aca- demic

Sinmmons. R. G . & Hlyth. D. A. 11987). M w W p inw rnltrlras,tre: Tht, impml n~fpiO,~rrul cIz<tr~fie ~tnd .s(.I~r,,d I : D ~ I P X I . NCW York: Aliline r l r Cruy1r.r

Spencer. C. 119901 O ~ L E T A 10 firow. p l ~ a w ! il x,nrkboak ol reuc-her <rdnhVron. idemr n,vl arrnr,rrr,r Vermont Statc D c p d - mcnt afEdocarion

Llpdegraff, K , A.. Gnharn. I. E.,Haker. A E.. Hergluntl, J. Fcrry. N.. Lutkus. L. M.. Manlovc. E. E..Okiddloh. D A . . & McHalc. S. hl . ( 19941. A,, ev,~lai.~la,,~ ~~Inr l r r l r r i .c~~~rr t ,~dndv~.~r~r . r .~penr ,~cr .~ i,, e .sr./~r~rrl adviror pnrpnrnl Reporr lrr IIIP Mi$-lt:<,,~! rrhc,nl

dtrrrlr-1, l ln~verrity Park: Pennsylvania Ststc Llni\,enity. I ) e ~ pnnment 01 Human Deucloprnenl md Family Studits.

Wcirsherg. R. I IL)90I, Ch;tllengrs inherent in trmslnling theory and hasic rcseilrch into r f f r c~ i v r social cornprtcncc promotion pro- gnms. In R. H Schncider. G. A. HIII. J Nedcr. R R. P Wcisskrg (Ed-.). .Y,~cirrl~on?pere,,~~ ;,I d ~ v r l ~ ~ p , ~ ~ o ~ r n l p ~ r s p ( i ~ ~ - 1n.e (pp.335-3381. Dordrcchl. The Netherlands: Kluwcr.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014