Examining the Iatrogenic Effects of the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study: Existing Explanations and New Appraisals

Zane, Steven N.; Welsh, Brandon C.; Zimmerman, Gregory M.

doi:10.1093/bjc/azv033

Cited by 22 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sub-group analyses revealed predominantly null results, but showed that some young people responded negatively to the intervention. Consistent with Zane et al [ 3 , 33 ], our analyses revealed a range of possible interrelated reasons underlying the negative and null effects of EiE-L. A combination of design and implementation problems, possibly compounded by deviancy training, appears to best explain our sub-group findings. As such, they also offer insights into the understanding of the main effect results [ 5 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…It is therefore possible that the format of one-to-one sessions led to negative results for those young people who were less engaged. However, these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive as design and implementation problems are often linked [ 33 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other studies have shown that treatment effects may be greater for those who are most compliant and/or those who are exposed to the highest “dosage” of an intervention, providing motivation to examine this further (e.g. [ 32 , 33 ]). For this reason we also examined whether a group of highest attenders differed in relation to controls.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

London Education and Inclusion Project (LEIP): Exploring Negative and Null Effects of a Cluster-Randomised School-Intervention to Reduce School Exclusion—Findings from Protocol-Based Subgroup Analyses

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents subgroup analyses from the London Education and Inclusion Project (LEIP). LEIP was a cluster-randomised controlled trial of an intervention called Engage in Education-London (EiE-L) which aimed to reduce school exclusions in those at greatest risk of exclusion. Pupils in the control schools attended an hour-long employability seminar. Minimisation was used to randomly assign schools to treatment and control following baseline data collection. The study involved 36 schools (17 in treatment—373 pupils; 19 in control—369 pupils) with >28% free school meal eligibility across London and utilised on pupil self-reports, teacher reports as well as official records to assess the effectiveness of EiE-L. Due to multiple data sources, sample sizes varied according to analysis. Analyses of pre-specified subgroups revealed null and negative effects on school exclusion following the intervention. Our findings suggest that the design and implementation of EiE-L may have contributed to the negative outcomes for pupils in the treatment schools when compared to those in the control schools. These findings call into question the effectiveness of bolt-on short-term interventions with pupils, particularly those at the highest risk of school exclusion and when they are faced with multiple problems. This is especially pertinent given the possibility of negative outcomes.Trial Registration: Controlled Trials: ISRCTN23244695

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

London Education and Inclusion Project (LEIP): Exploring Negative and Null Effects of a Cluster-Randomised School-Intervention to Reduce School Exclusion—Findings from Protocol-Based Subgroup Analyses

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studying transmission of treatment effects to future generations is a natural extension of this long-term perspective. Specifically, looking at transmission of treatment effects helps us to understand the full impact that a treatment can have-both for better and for worse (see McCord 2003;Zane et al 2016). In the case of the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study, determining whether the iatrogenic effects that were detected at age 45 are transmitted to future generations poses a troubling question: did the treatment have harmful effects extending even beyond the direct participants?…”

Section: Transmission Of Treatment Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Historical Developments and Contemporary Relevance of the Longitudinal–Experimental Design of the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study: Utility for Research on Intergenerational Transmission of Offending

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Founded in 1939, the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study represents the earliest longitudinal-experimental study in developmental crime prevention, combining the aims of understanding how the developmental process is related to future offending (i.e., longitudinal focus) as well as attempting to prevent offending through an experimental intervention during early adolescence. This article examines the historical context in which this novel design arose and provides a review of studies performed by Joan McCord based on her age-45 follow up of the study. The study made possible decades of research on developmental risk factors for delinquency and criminal offending. A central question that arises from McCord's body of research is how these risk factors are transmitted from parents to children. This article reviews extant research on the transmission of intergenerational offending, and discusses the potential of the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study to contribute to this literature. Specifically, the prospective longitudinal design makes it possible to include the children of the study participants and investigate the intergenerational transmission of offending, while the longitudinal-experimental design allows for the investigation of the transmission of treatment effects. This potential research stands as a testament to the study's design and vision.

show abstract

“…For the purpose of brevity, we will focus exclusively on offending outcomes. We begin with some background on the CSYS (for more details, see Zane et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who cares about a delinquency prevention experiment of Boston boys born in the 1920s and 1930s? The need for long‐term follow‐ups in criminology

Welsh

Zimmerman

2015

Criminal Behav Ment Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Examining the Iatrogenic Effects of the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study: Existing Explanations and New Appraisals

Cited by 22 publications

References 63 publications

London Education and Inclusion Project (LEIP): Exploring Negative and Null Effects of a Cluster-Randomised School-Intervention to Reduce School Exclusion—Findings from Protocol-Based Subgroup Analyses

London Education and Inclusion Project (LEIP): Exploring Negative and Null Effects of a Cluster-Randomised School-Intervention to Reduce School Exclusion—Findings from Protocol-Based Subgroup Analyses

Examining the Historical Developments and Contemporary Relevance of the Longitudinal–Experimental Design of the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study: Utility for Research on Intergenerational Transmission of Offending

Who cares about a delinquency prevention experiment of Boston boys born in the 1920s and 1930s? The need for long‐term follow‐ups in criminology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About