Influence of homogeneity of student characteristics in a group-based social competence intervention.

Abstract

Although some literature reviews cited mixed results for group-based social competence interventions in schools, existing descriptions of intervention efficacy often lack attention on important factors that may moderate differential response. Some studies suggest that individual characteristics such as diagnosis (i.e., specific deficit clusters) or behavioral profiles may be important social outcome moderators. Given the interactive nature of group-based interventions, understanding how individual characteristics combine to influence outcomes for the group as a whole is an important next step. By using a multisite cluster randomized control trial (n = 274), the current study explores the impact that varying student characteristics have on outcomes of the Social Competence Intervention for Adolescents (SCI-A; Stichter, Herzog, Owens, & Malugen, 2016; Stichter et al., 2010) compared to outcomes of business-as-usual (BAU) practices. Researchers hypothesized that (a) SCI-A would be more effective than BAU in improving ratings of students' social functioning when students within groups were more similar to each other on relevant diagnostic and behavioral indicators, and (b) that within SCI-A only, more versus less homogenous groups would demonstrate greater social outcome gains. Results offer some support for these hypotheses: SCI-A was more effective in improving social communication and motivation when groups were diagnostically similar (ds > 0.55). Considering changes in social awareness and communication, SCI-A was more effective when groups were heterogeneous on socially competent behavior (ds > 1.32) and less effective when groups were heterogeneous on antisocial behavior (ds > 1.00). The authors discuss the implications and importance of research exploring factors such as group composition that may moderate intervention response in applied settings. (PsycINFO Database Record

Students Critical-Creative Thinking Skill: A Multivariate Analysis of Experiments and Gender

“…Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances Table 5 shows that the most significant value is higher than 0.05, which means that the scores of CvTS and CrTS are definitely different (Stichter et al, 2019) due to students' efficacy and anxiety in the learning process (Assan and Sarfo, 2015). This is similar to the studies carried out by (Chang, S., and Cho, 2013;Hill et al, 2016), which stated that female students are more anxious than males, especially in math.…”

“…This means, that the experimental and gender models are different in accordance with students' scores. The same result is also shown by CrTS average score with 0.138 above 0.05 and different from their experiment and gender models (Stichter et al, 2019). .…”

“…Most of the scores are higher than 0.05, in accordance with the score and significance values, therefore the data are homogeneous. This result showed that the student's score of CrTS and CvTS are in the control class using HOTs Lab model, while the experiment class produced different results using the MSLAM (Stichter et al, 2019). Meanwhile, the data classified in each competence, can improve CvTS using the MSLAM, because the average significance score is 0.091.…”

Peer Influence in a School for Youth With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

“…Negative peer dynamics can reduce the potential benefits of an intervention or result in escalated negative behavior (Dodge et al, 2006). Group composition, the distribution of individual traits (e.g., diagnosis or specific behaviors) in a group, is a primary mechanism of these effects (Macgowan & Wagner, 2005;Stichter et al, 2019). Group composition is closely related to behavior norms as the distribution of individuals with specific behaviors at the formation of a group influences norm development (Laninga-Wijnen et al, 2018;Müller, 2010).…”

“…In interventions that aggregate youth with mental health or behavioral concerns, peer dynamics influence treatment outcomes (Dishion et al, 2008; Stichter et al, 2019). Negative peer dynamics can reduce the potential benefits of an intervention or result in escalated negative behavior (Dodge et al, 2006).…”