“…The effect sizes did not differ significantly when studies with cluster randomized designs were included (d + = 1.98 and 0.40 for effects on progress monitoring and goal attainment, respectively) versus excluded (d + = 1.96 and 0.40, respectively), Q(1) = 0.33 and 0.02, p = 0.57 and 0.89. 6 The 20 studies used in the mediation analysis were Akers, Cornett, Savla, Davy, and Davy (2012), Boutelle, Kirschenbaum, Baker, and Mitchell (1999), Chambliss, Huber, Finlay, McDoniel, Kitzman-Ulrich, and Wilkinson (2011), Cussler et al (2008, Duran et al (2010), Gokee-La Rose, Gorin, andWing (2009), Hellerstedt andJeffrey (1997, behavior-focused phone group), Helsel et al (2007), Kempf, Tankova, and Martin (2013), ), Morgan et al (2009), Nguyen, Gill, Wolpin, Steele, and Benditt (2009), Pellegrini et al (2012), Runyan, Steenbergh, Bainbridge, Daugherty, Oke, and Fry (2013, Samuel-Hodge et al (2009), Tate et al (2001, Tan, Maganee, Chee, Lee, andTan (2011), Wang, Sereika, Chasens, Ewing, Matthews, andBurke (2012), Webber, Tate, and Bowling (2008), and Wing, Crane, Thomas, Kumar, and Weinberg (2010) if participants in the comparison condition were also asked to monitor their progress -a methodological feature that led to smaller effect sizes for progress monitoring. 7 For the purposes of this analysis we recomputed the effect size for goal attainment using only the measures for which the primary studies reported the correlation between the frequency of progress monitoring and goal attainment.…”