Quality of Research
Documents Reviewed
The documents below were reviewed for Quality of Research. The research point of
contact can provide information regarding the studies reviewed and the availability
of additional materials, including those from more recent studies that may have been conducted.
Study 1Werch, C. E., Young, M., Clark, M., Garrett, C., Hooks, S., & Kersten, C. (1991). Effects of a take-home drug prevention program on drug-related communication and beliefs of parents and children. Journal of School Health, 61(8), 346-350.  Study 2Kersten, C., Werch, C., & Young, M. (1992). Results from Keep A Clear Mind: A drug education program for parents and their children. Arkansas Journal, 27, 17-19. Study 3Young, M., Kersten, C., & Werch, C. (1996). Evaluation of a parent child drug education program. Journal of Drug Education, 26(1), 57-68.
Supplementary Materials Parent Posttest II Survey
Student Posttest II Survey
Young, M., Werch, C., Kersten, C., & Turrentine, A. (1991). Keep A Clear Mind: A parent-child program in drug education. Wellness Perspectives: Research, Theory and Practice, 8(2), 72-75.
Outcomes
| Outcome 1: Parent-child communication about resisting alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs |
|
Description of Measures
|
Parents completed a self-report questionnaire that included 5 items measuring parent-child communication about drugs. Two questions addressed the frequency of communication: "When was the last time you and your fourth/fifth/sixth grade student talked about how to refuse or avoid drugs?" (today, within the last week, within the last month, within the last 2 months, not within the last 2 months, or don't know) and "In the last month, how many times did you and your child talk about how to refuse or avoid drugs?" (1 or 2 times, 3 or 4 times, 5 to 10 times, 11 or more times, not in the last month, or don't know). Three additional questions determined whether parents had talked with their children in the past month about resisting peer pressure to use each of the following: alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana (yes, no, or don't know).
|
|
Key Findings
|
In the posttest survey, mothers who participated in KACM reported more recent (p = .001) and more frequent (p = .001) communication with their children about how to refuse or avoid drugs compared with mothers in the wait-list comparison group. Mothers in KACM also reported a greater number of discussions with their children in the past month about how to resist peer pressure to drink and use drugs (p = .0001 for using alcohol, p = .0001 for using tobacco). Similar results were seen for fathers (p = .02 for using alcohol, p = .006 for using tobacco, ns for trying marijuana).
In addition, fathers who participated in KACM reported more motivation to help their children avoid drugs compared with fathers in the wait-list comparison group (p = .04).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
1.3
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 2: Perceptions about the extent of young people's use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs |
|
Description of Measures
|
Children completed a self-report questionnaire that included measures of perceived peer use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. One study also included similar items for parents, asking whether they believed "most kids" use alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana.
|
|
Key Findings
|
In the posttest survey, children who participated in KACM perceived less widespread peer use of alcohol (p = .0002), tobacco (p = .05), and marijuana (p = .009) compared with children in the wait-list comparison group.
When asked to agree or disagree with the statement that most youth use substances, parents and children who participated in KACM were more likely than those in the wait-list comparison group to change their opinion over time from agreement to disagreement. This change was reported for alcohol (p < .05 for students and parents), tobacco (p < .01 for students and parents), and marijuana (p < .001 for parents).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1, Study 2, Study 3
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
1.0
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 3: Peer pressure susceptibility to experiment with alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs |
|
Description of Measures
|
Children completed a self-report questionnaire that included measures of peer pressure susceptibility to experiment with alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. One study also included similar items for parents regarding their perceptions of their own child's ability to resist peer pressure to use these drugs.
|
|
Key Findings
|
In the posttest survey, children who participated in KACM reported less peer pressure susceptibility to experiment with cigarettes compared with children in the wait-list comparison group (p = .009).
Parents who participated in KACM were more likely than wait-list parents to change their perceptions of the ability of their child to resist peer pressure to use alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana (p < .0001) from "No for sure" or "No" to "Yes" or "Yes for sure."
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1, Study 3
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
1.1
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 4: Perceptions about parental attitudes toward alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use |
|
Description of Measures
|
Children completed a self-report questionnaire that included measures of parental attitudes toward the use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana.
|
|
Key Findings
|
From pretest to posttest, children who participated in KACM were more likely than children in the wait-list comparison group to move toward a no-use position when asked if their parents/guardians "think it is O.K." to use alcohol (p = .012) or marijuana (p = .049).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 2
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
0.7
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 5: Expectations of using/trying alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs in the future |
|
Description of Measures
|
Children completed a self-report questionnaire that included measures of their intent to use alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. Parents completed similar items regarding their expectations about their own child trying these drugs.
|
|
Key Findings
|
From pretest to posttest, children who participated in KACM were more likely than children in the wait-list comparison group to change their expectations of using cigarettes (p = .05) or snuff (p = .002) from "Yes for sure" or "Yes" to "No" or "No for sure."
Parents who participated in KACM were more likely than parents in the wait-list comparison group to change their expectations that their child will try alcohol (p < .0001), tobacco (p < .0001), or marijuana (p = .003) from "Yes for sure" or "Yes" to "No" or "No for sure."
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 3
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
0.8
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 6: Realization of general harmful effects of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs on young people |
|
Description of Measures
|
Children and parents completed separate self-report questionnaires that included measures of their attitudes toward the use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana.
|
|
Key Findings
|
From pretest to posttest, children and parents who participated in KACM were more likely than those in the wait-list comparison group to change their opinion from "Yes for sure" or "Yes" to "No" or "No for sure" when asked about their realization that alcohol (p = .016 for parents) and tobacco (p = .035 for parents, p = .01 for children) have harmful effects on young people.
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 3
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
0.8
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
Study Populations
The following populations were identified in the studies reviewed for Quality of
Research.
|
Study
|
Age
|
Gender
|
Race/Ethnicity
|
|
Study 1
|
6-12 (Childhood)
18-25 (Young adult)
26-55 (Adult)
|
53% Female
47% Male
|
93% White
7% Race/ethnicity unspecified
|
|
Study 2
|
6-12 (Childhood)
|
Data not reported/available
|
Data not reported/available
|
|
Study 3
|
6-12 (Childhood)
18-25 (Young adult)
26-55 (Adult)
|
59.9% Female
40.1% Male
|
90.2% White
5.8% Black or African American
4% Race/ethnicity unspecified
|
Quality of Research Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)
External reviewers independently evaluate the Quality of Research for an intervention's
reported results using six criteria:
For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Quality of Research.
|
Outcome
|
Reliability
of Measures
|
Validity
of Measures
|
Fidelity
|
Missing
Data/Attrition
|
Confounding
Variables
|
Data
Analysis
|
Overall
Rating
|
|
1: Parent-child communication about resisting alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs
|
0.0
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
2.0
|
3.0
|
1.0
|
1.3
|
|
2: Perceptions about the extent of young people's use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs
|
0.0
|
1.0
|
0.5
|
1.5
|
2.5
|
0.5
|
1.0
|
|
3: Peer pressure susceptibility to experiment with alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs
|
0.0
|
1.0
|
0.5
|
2.0
|
2.5
|
0.5
|
1.1
|
|
4: Perceptions about parental attitudes toward alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use
|
0.0
|
1.0
|
0.0
|
1.0
|
2.0
|
0.0
|
0.7
|
|
5: Expectations of using/trying alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs in the future
|
0.0
|
1.0
|
0.0
|
1.5
|
2.0
|
0.0
|
0.8
|
|
6: Realization of general harmful effects of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs on young people
|
0.0
|
1.0
|
0.0
|
1.5
|
2.0
|
0.0
|
0.8
|
Study Strengths The measures have face validity. In one study, the authors provided self-reported percentages of mothers and fathers who helped their children with the materials, as well as the percentage of the materials completed. In one study, retention was high. Random assignment helped to control for some threats to validity. Sample size and power were adequate.
Study Weaknesses The investigators generated the measures and did not present information on their psychometric properties. In one study, no information was provided on how many parents responded to questions about completion, which lessons were completed, and what definition was used for completion of materials. No details were provided regarding intervention fidelity for the other two studies. Incomplete data were an issue, and the authors did not present information on potential differential attrition. In some instances, the analyses were incomplete or overly simplistic for the design of the studies. Pre-post differences were not adjusted for baseline scores. In one study, an overall chi-square statistic was reported, but pair-wise test statistics were not conducted to determine which groups differed from one another. The analyses did not take into account the number of dependent variables analyzed (i.e., did not control for chance findings).
|
|
