A mixed‐method efficacy and fidelity study of Check and Connect

Abstract

The effectiveness of the Check and Connect dropout prevention program was examined, over the course of 2 ½ years, with 54 middle school students from diverse backgrounds experiencing one or more conditions of risk for dropout. Participants were randomly assigned to receive the Check and Connect intervention or business as usual (i.e., control) in sixth grade. Students in the treatment group had significantly better eighth grade attendance than the control. There were no significant differences between the two groups in eighth grade cumulative grade point average or office disciplinary referrals. An in-depth analysis of the quality and quantity of the intervention delivered to the students in the treatment group identified conditions that were associated with higher treatment integrity and better student outcomes.

Student engagement, truancy, and cynicism: A longitudinal study from primary school to upper secondary education

“…Moreover, school-wide support for students' positive behaviors and parents' active affective involvement in their children's schooling can promote success and prevent students from developing a cynical attitude toward school. More targeted and comprehensive approaches include individualized interventions, such as Check & Connect (Christenson, Stout, & Pohl, 2012), which has been shown to increase school attendance among eighth graders (Powers, Hagans, & Linn, 2017). Aligning with the operationalization of affective engagement in the present study, Check & and Connect is based on long-term relationship building; therefore, a minimum two-year intervention period is needed (see Maynard, Kjellstrand, & Thomspon, 2013).…”

Assessing the Fidelity of an Affirmative Cognitive Behavioral Group Intervention

“…Thematic analysis connected to each fidelity rating was utilized for the 73 notes justifying scores found in the AFFIRM Fidelity Checklist. Although not necessarily unique in social work fidelity research ( Powers, et al, 2017 ; Odden, et al, 2019 ; Palmer, et al, 2019 ), the mixed-methods approach allowed for a richer understanding of the causes of low and high fidelity scores for particular sessions and was a holistic method to capture the implementation processes and context, the multimodal (audio and written data) ( Craig et al, 2021 ), and triangulate raters’ assigned scores and their notes on their scoring process.…”

An Evaluation of Treatment Integrity and Acceptability of Check & Connect

“…The mentor also frequently communicates with teachers and families about the student’s engagement and, based on the data collected, determines if intensive interventions are needed. Accumulating studies (e.g., Heppen et al, 2018; Maynard, Kjellstrand, & Thompson, 2014; Powers, Hagans, & Linn, 2017; Sinclair et al, 1998; Sinclair, Christenson, & Thurlow, 2005) show that C&C improves students’ school performance and reduces dropout rates.…”

“…Treatment acceptability is often assessed by asking consumers to indicate their opinions about an intervention via a rating scale or interview. To date, among five C&C studies with a randomized control trial (RCT; that is, Heppen et al, 2018; Maynard et al, 2014; Powers et al, 2017; Sinclair et al, 1998; Sinclair et al, 2005), treatment integrity was only reported in two studies (i.e., Heppen et al, 2018; Powers et al, 2017) and treatment acceptability was vacant in all studies.…”