Transcript Process Communications Model

School-based interventions to reduce
drug/alcohol use
Evidence-based practice in the trenches
www.pv-psg.org
316-284-6446
[email protected]
Who is Prairie View?








Non-profit Community Mental Health Center
Open since 1954
450 employees, serves 12,000 patients/year
Full range of services, including inpatient hospital,
outpatient therapy, school for at-risk youth, adolescent
residential program, community-based outreach, housing
15 years of clinical outcomes research
14 years of adventure-based programming with inpatient,
outpatient, and non-clinical populations of all ages
6 years of outcomes research in adventure
Partnering with Project Adventure to study outcomes tools,
provide open enrollment trainings, and study behavioral
management models.
Who is Process Solutions?
Prairie View’s organizational consulting,
training, and research division
 Vision statement: Renewing Spirit,
Discovering Strengths, Pursuing
Excellence
 Three core components




Process Communication Model (PCM)
Adventure-based learning models
Self-Efficacy outcomes measurement
Overview
Setting the stage
 Getting the contract – making the case,
connecting the dots
 Research design and data collection
 Results so far
 Lessons learned
 Discussion

Prior experience
Worked with Haysville Alternative school
during 2005-2006 school years
experimenting with combination of
adventure course and school-based
adventure groups.
 Collected outcomes data with control
groups showing effectiveness in raising
self-efficacy
 Had begun capacity building with
alternative school staff to conduct schoolbased groups

The big one!
Haysville school district taking bids on
drug-alcohol reduction programs
 Already had a liking for adventure-based
methods
 Strong school board pressure for hard-line
fear-based tactics such as drug dogs
 School advisory council allowed us to
make a presentation, submit a bid

Making our case






Escalating drug and alcohol use, along with the
negative health and societal consequences
Increasing communication gap between youth
and adult culture
Changes in socio-economic profile and gaps
Increasingly fragmented family and community
support systems
More and more responsibility shifted to schools to
help deal with the problems
So many things interfering with the learning
process
Our hope
Reducing drug and alcohol use/abuse
among youth
 Making school a place where youth are
developing the skills necessary to become
healthy, contributing adults
 Feeling like we are really connecting with
kids, making a difference in their lives
 Modeling effective approaches, where
others can come to observe and learn

Where’s the problem? Where’s the
solution?
Attitudes, values, and beliefs about
student drug and alcohol use
 From your perspective, what’s the solution
to all this nonsense?

How did you answer?
Nurturing ___
 Values ___
 Information ___
 Fun ___
 Direction ___
 Excitement ___

How youth are engaged
Excitement
Direction
Nurture
Information
Values
Fun
Source: Pauley, Bradley & Pauley (2003). Here’s How to Reach Me. Brooks Publishing
How at-risk youth are engaged
Nurture
4%
Excitement
32%
Direction
8%
Values
4%
Fun
48%
Information
4%
Less than 20% of the youth account for more than 80% of the problems
Toward No Drug Abuse (TND)
SAMHSA Model program status
 Lists individual, family, school, and
community protective factors
 1/3 of the factors relate to having
adequate information
 The remaining 2/3 relate to developing
social and emotional intelligence

CTC Survey Data for Haysville





Drug/Alcohol use above county and state
averages on most indicators
Below averages on protective factors
Above averages on risk factors
Getting bad press
Of the 17 peer/individual, family, and school risk
factors, 14 relate to social/emotional intelligence
process factors, i.e. patterns of getting
motivational needs met in unhealthy ways, failure
to engage or relate effectively, or mismatch
between environmental demands and coping
skills
So what are the keys?





Self-awareness - understanding what makes me
tick and stop ticking effectively
Responsibility - Skill-building in meeting my
needs in healthy ways, recognizing and reversing
negative attention patterns
Belief in my ability to act on what I know and
learn
Hope that my effort will get me somewhere
Support - peer, school, family, and community
support for positive change
Self-Efficacy




A person’s belief in their ability to act in a
manner appropriate and necessary to deal with
various situations (Bandura)
Social/Emotional skills in action
The difference between what you know, and what
you do with what you know.
With regard to it’s impact on health and wellness,
positive behavior change, and overcoming
obstacles, self-efficacy is the most wellresearched and strongly supported construct
currently available.
For a glimpse into the world of self-efficacy, go to www.des.emory.edu/mfp/selfefficacy.html
Self-Efficacy






Differs from attitudes, values and beliefs about
others or situations – self-efficacy is focused on
personal capabilities.
Transcends age, gender, type of problem, or
socioeconomic status.
Self-efficacy is necessary for a person to act on
what they know or learn.
It connects a person’s innate gifts, resources and
potential with the demands of the real world
Is NOT self-esteem (see work by Roy Baumeister)
Strongly connected to failing forward and
resilience
Process Solutions knows what works


Prairie View has a 52 year history in building self-efficacy. We are
in the change business.
14 year history in measuring outcomes in mental health and
substance abuse treatment exploring the most effective
approaches.


Just received Lattner Foundation grant to advance our work in
outcomes
13 year history in adventure-based programming






Present nationally at conferences
Published outcomes tools
Partnership with Project Adventure, the nation’s premier adventure
training and programming organization
Ongoing calendar of training programs
Ongoing research programs
Proven results with local schools
Programs are effective when they…







Understand the impact of personality on behavior,
engagement, learning, and motivation
Involve models of personality that go deep enough in
explaining distress, negative attention, and many of the
dynamics influencing drug/alcohol use
Place emphasis both on providing information AND building
self-efficacy
Focus on potential and resiliency instead of what’s wrong
with youth (i.e. strengths-based)
Focus on empowering youth to make positive changes
rather than trying to control behavior
Include effective capacity-building for staff
Provide tools for culture change within systems
Our tools

Perceived Competence of Functioning Inventory (PCFI) – 16
item self-report assessment of self-efficacy








Motivational competencies* - setting and pursuing goals
Affective competencies – dealing with feelings about self
Cognitive competencies – judgment and critical thinking
Relational competencies* - connecting with others, giving
and receiving support
General Level of Functioning – overall efficacy
Internal consistency of .88 - .90
Test-retest reliability - .73
Validated against the MCMI, Hope Scale, Ways of Coping
Scale, Brief Symptom Index, and OQ-45
* Preliminary data from a large-scale longitudinal study at
University of Minnesota on the impact of adventure-based
interventions on drug/alcohol use shows that raising
motivational and relational competencies are the two strongest
predictors of success.
Our tools
 PCFI
8-item scale for ages 10-13
 Same
subscales as PCFI-16
 psychometrics
yet
not established
Our tools

Process Communication Model (PCM)


Transactional personality communication model
Defines 6 personality types, each with specific and
predictable








Perceptual filters and preferred “channels of communication”
Character strengths
Psychological needs and motivators
Learning styles and environmental preferences
Second by second negative attention and sabotage
behaviors
Likely racket emotions /authentic unresolved emotions
Typical clinical manifestations
Manual, training trajectory, and competency skills
verification exists, so fidelity easier to manage
Experiential/Adventure Learning







Learning through doing
Clearly superior to “sit n git” learning – enhances retention
and application of material
Engages multiple learning and personality styles
When done well, closely mimics real-life social and
emotional challenges
Proven to positively impact key areas of self-efficacy
Published meta analysis proves effectiveness
Our data from 800 students completing similar programs
over the last 3 years replicates these findings
Our success with youth
Analysis of 800 youth participating in our
adventure course programs show
statistically significant gains in selfefficacy with moderate to large effect
sizes.
 Numerous individual examples of
transformed lives.
 No comparison groups or follow-up data
yet.

Our success with at-risk youth
Grades 6-12

Analysis of 204 at-risk students from 5 different schools
(including Haysville Alternative) who have completed our
school-based programs since 2005, and 23 matched
controls.



Slight reduction in motivational, affective, cognitive, and
relational capabilities for control group*
Significant improvements in all scales for treatment group
When asked to rate their confidence in coping without using
drugs or alcohol – negligible change in control group,
improvement in treatment group. Although the improvement
was fairly small, it was 15 x larger than the change in the
control group.
* Our programs reversed a negative trend without changing
curriculum or staffing. When we train staff and parents to use
these tools, outcomes can be even more dramatic.
Why choose Process Solutions?
Local relationships and support that will be
here for the long term
 Clinical expertise and history
 Proven tools, proven outcomes
 Research experience and national
partnerships for excellence
 Shared values

What do you have to gain?
Impact on target behaviors, enhanced
student efficacy and achievement,
enhanced staff morale
 Publicity and recognition for innovation
 Opportunity and research data to obtain
grant funding

Implementation Plan
start small, demonstrate results, get funding to expand
Level 1:
 Level 2:
 Level 3:
 Level 4:
leaders

Direct services for at-risk youth
Capacity building for staff
Consultation/Coaching
Advanced training to build local
Level 1: Direct Services

LEEP program – Learning and Empowerment
through Experiential Programs





Up to 15 students
1 hour/week on-site groups for 6 weeks
Finish with 1 day on adventure course
Outcomes tracking for treatment and matched control
group
Fidelity



Program manual
Weekly facilitator consultation group
Dual facilitator model
Level 2: Capacity Building


2 day PCM training (second semester)
Content





Teach teachers the PCM model, which outlines basic skills in
connecting, motivating, and reducing conflict in the classroom
for all 6 personality types
Teach tools for empowering students to get their psychological
needs and motivators met in healthy, productive ways (rather
than with drugs/alcohol/violence)
Teach basics of transforming the classroom into an
environment that supports all learning styles and engages all
students
Could be applied for parents as well (perhaps even include
parents?)
Fidelity



Manual and rigorous certification training
Regular group consultation among trainers
Dual trainer model
Level 3: Consultation/Coaching
PVPS staff on-site for regular consultation
and coaching
 1 hour ten times during semester

Level 4: Advanced Training



For selected staff/students who will be mentors
and consultants to rest of the system
Students selected/apply from LEEP program
3-days customized training in using PCM and
adventure based methods in the school to:





enhance impact of programs such as Challenge Day or
other adventure-based programs, every day throughout
the year.
meet diverse student needs
increase self-efficacy
break down barriers and stereotypes
build peer accountability culture
Funding Options

Funds that directly relate to these services




Safe and Drug Free Schools dollars
Staff Development funds
At Risk Student funds
Other options?
Anticipating resistance
Yes, but….

Not many people will receive your services. How
can that really make a difference?



At risk youth can lead the gangs, or they can lead the
healthy initiatives. Connect with them first.
It’s not about Prairie View connecting with each person.
It’s about initiating a culture change, moving toward a
tipping point, empowering the right people to spread
positive energy, finding and developing leaders, and
gaining momentum.
Capacity building recognizes that those who deal with
the kids, families, and community day in and day out
are the ones who can really make a difference.
Yes, but….

What about the kids who are already
using?


You can’t stop them, but you can begin to
create a culture and environment that is
incompatible with drug/alcohol abuse
This is a long-term investment
Yes, but….

When will we fit this all in?



How are at risk youth spending their time now? How
productive is it? What are they accomplishing?
How much time are staff spending dealing with the
distraction of disengaged youth, consequences of
drug/alcohol use and other problems we are attempting
to address?
The intended result is that everyone involved (staff and
students) are making more productive use of their
precious time.
Yes, but….

What about the schools who aren’t involved…what can they
do?






Assist in efforts to find funding
Work to develop community coalitions and partnerships
Volunteer to be a control group
Send one or two staff to our open enrollment seminars to testdrive what we do
Initial demonstration training should include staff from around
the district so we can discuss this question during those two
days
Promote the program and listen to what others are learning
Obtaining Collaboration
Built on existing relationship with the
district’s education coordinator and
principle from one of the grade schools
 Proposal presented to district site council
 Follow-up presentations and planning
meetings with principles and counselors
from the two participating schools

Research Design



Crossover design. Conditions crossed over at
Spring semester
New elementary school - 5th graders – 2 classes
(N = 27) experimental group, 2 classes (N = 28)
control group
H.S. – Access Program for students designated as
“at risk” based on grades and other behavioral
indicators

49 students Randomly assigned to experimental and
control groups
Data Collection Protocol



PCFI at week 1, 4, and 6 of LEEP, day before and
day after Adventure course, and semester end.
Control group: Week 1, 4, 6, and semester end
Behavioral data collected for prior year (2006)
and current year to date.





GPA
Math and Reading test scores
Attendance (h.s. only)
Behavioral referrals (h.s. only)
Attendance (h.s. only)
Challenges along the way

Getting all the PCFI data collected




Designated internal staff person trained to
collect all PCFI data for every condition
All PCFIs were completed in classroom setting,
same time of day (even for adventure course)
PVPS facilitators brought data back to our lab
for scoring
Our outcomes coordinator had constant
contact with school to update on status of data
collection, missing data, etc.
Challenges along the way

Changing plans mid-stream


H.S. staff didn’t show up for consultation,
didn’t support LEEP program
Resources and funds diverted to elementary
school for second semester
Challenges along the way

Gathering behavioral data



Took several months for school to collect and
deliver all the data
Lots of missing data, no referral or attendance
data for elementary students
Lots of passing the buck
What we’ve got so far!
Psychometrics of the PCFI
 PCFI self-efficacy data for program and
control groups
 Associated behavioral data for program
and control groups

Testing Internal Consistency


49 high school students completed PCFI-16 at 4
time frames throughout semester. Program
group (N = 25) also completed PCFI before and
after day on adventure course
55 5th grader students completed PCFI-8 at 4
time frames throughout semester. Program
group (N = 28) also completed PCFI before and
after day on adventure course
Full Scale Reliability
PCFI-16 and PCFI-8
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
PCFI-16
PCFI-8
Week 1 Week 3 Week 6 Pre-Adv.
Course
Time Frame
PostAdv.
Course
Week
13
Implications




Reliability goes up with repeated administrations
(would be expected) but stabilizes somewhat
over time
As with our previous experience, initial
administration with a group is less reliable than
follow-up administrations (demand
characteristics, lack of trust, etc.)
8-item PCFI performed respectably, may present
a viable alternative for younger children
Examining test-retest reliability, and subscale
characteristics are the next steps
Pre-Test Mid-Test
Motivational
Cognitive
Relational
Affective
GLF
55.51
61.38
63.10
63.79
60.95
60.00
62.76
65.17
66.55
63.62
PostTest
63.33
65.19
64.81
66.30
64.91
Semester
Adv-Pre Adv-Post
End
64.07
65.19
66.67
65.93
65.46
61.85
61.48
66.67
67.41
64.35
Pre to
End
Change
Pre to
End St.
Dev.
Pre to
End
Effect
6.71
1.21
1.71
2.51
3.03
13.46
14.57
13.26
16.84
11.04
0.50
0.08
0.13
0.15
0.27
62.22
62.59
64.81
66.30
63.98
Pre to
Pre to
Adv Post Adv Post
Change
Effect
6.34
0.10
3.57
3.62
3.40
0.45
0.01
0.25
0.21
0.28
Prairie Elementary School - Program Group
Pre-Test
Mid-Test
Post-Test
Adv-Pre
Adv-Post
Semester End
80.0
Average Score
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
Motivational
Cognitive
Relational
Affective
GLF
Pre-Test Mid-Test
Motivational
Cognitive
Relational
Affective
GLF
58.00
65.00
63.33
67.67
63.50
58.89
58.89
62.22
71.85
62.96
PostTest
Semester
End
Pre to
End
Change
Pre to
End St.
Dev.
Pre to
End
Effect
57.31
60.00
63.46
66.54
61.83
55.00
57.69
62.69
65.00
60.10
-3.00
-7.31
-0.64
-2.67
-3.40
8.53
12.03
13.32
12.01
7.97
-0.35
-0.61
-0.05
-0.22
-0.43
Prairie Elementary School - Control Group
Pre-Test
Mid-Test
Post-Test
Semester End
80.0
Average Score
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
Motivational
Cognitive
Relational
Affective
GLF
Prairie Elementary – PCFI Results
Motivational
Control
En
d
te
r
st
Se
m
es
Ad
vPo
Ad
vPr
e
t
Te
s
tPo
s
id
-T
M
-T
es
t
es
t
75.0
73.0
71.0
69.0
67.0
65.0
63.0
61.0
59.0
57.0
55.0
Pr
e
Average Score
Program
Prairie Elementary – PCFI Results
Cognitive
Control
En
d
Se
m
es
te
r
st
Ad
vPo
Ad
vPr
e
t
Te
s
tPo
s
id
-T
es
t
M
-T
es
t
75.0
73.0
71.0
69.0
67.0
65.0
63.0
61.0
59.0
57.0
55.0
Pr
e
Average Score
Program
Prairie Elementary – PCFI Results
Relational
Control
En
d
te
r
t
Se
m
es
Ad
vPo
s
Ad
vPr
e
t
Te
s
tPo
s
id
-T
M
-T
es
t
es
t
75.0
73.0
71.0
69.0
67.0
65.0
63.0
61.0
59.0
57.0
55.0
Pr
e
Average Score
Program
Prairie Elementary – PCFI Results
Affective
Control
En
d
te
r
t
Se
m
es
Ad
vPo
s
Ad
vPr
e
t
Te
s
tPo
s
id
-T
M
-T
es
t
es
t
75.0
73.0
71.0
69.0
67.0
65.0
63.0
61.0
59.0
57.0
55.0
Pr
e
Average Score
Program
Prairie Elementary – PCFI Results
General Level of Functioning
Control
En
d
te
r
t
Se
m
es
Ad
vPo
s
Ad
vPr
e
t
Te
s
tPo
s
id
-T
M
-T
es
t
es
t
75.0
73.0
71.0
69.0
67.0
65.0
63.0
61.0
59.0
57.0
55.0
Pr
e
Average Score
Program
5th Grade Samples
GPA prior year vs. this year
3.5
3
2.5
Program
2
1.5
Control
1
0.5
0
GPA '06-07
GPA '07-08
5th Grade Sample
Math scores prior year vs. this year
214
212
210
208
206
204
202
200
198
196
Program
Control
Math Fall '06
Math Fall '07
5th Grade Samples
Reading scores prior year vs. this year
210
208
206
204
202
200
198
196
194
Program
Control
Reading Fall '06
Reading Fall '07
Behavioral Measures Prairie Elementary
Program
Control
GPA '06- GPA '0707
08
2.22
3.05
2.22
3.18
Change
Size
0.83
0.96
Stan.
Dev.
1.46
1.66
Effect
Size
0.57
0.58
n.s
Program
Control
Math Fall Math Fall
'06
'07
202.62
207.68
205.36
212.04
Change
Size
5.06
6.68
Stan.
Dev.
11.62
11.93
Effect
Size
0.44
0.56
n.s
Program
Control
Reading
Fall '06
200.27
203.73
Change
Size
0.12
5.42
Stan.
Dev.
13.13
11.72
Effect
Size
0.01
0.46
Reading
Fall '07
200.39
209.15
Sig. Level
p = .03
Prairie Elementary Summary
Program Vs. Control Summary

PCFI




GPA Change Scores


N.S. difference between groups
Math Change Scores


No difference between groups on any scales at
beginning
Motivational scale significantly higher at end for program
group
Cognitive scale approaching significance at end for
program group
N.S. difference between groups
Reading Change Scores

Control group started higher and made significantly
more change than program group
Pre-Test Mid-Test
Motivational
Cognitive
Relational
Affective
GLF
56.00
49.04
55.65
53.57
53.57
56.35
50.96
50.78
53.91
53.00
PostTest
54.96
51.70
54.37
57.93
54.74
Adv - Pre
Adv Post
Semester
End
Pre to
End
Change
Pre to
End St.
Dev.
Pre to
Post
Effect
57.63
52.74
55.26
56.59
55.56
59.00
55.60
53.60
59.00
56.80
58.17
50.67
47.50
57.17
53.38
2.17
1.63
-8.15
3.60
-0.20
13.04
17.50
14.34
16.23
13.15
0.17
0.09
-0.57
0.22
-0.01
Pre to
Pre to
Adv Post Adv Post
Change
Effect
3.00
6.56
-2.05
5.43
3.23
0.24
0.43
-0.14
0.37
0.27
Campus High School - Program Group
Pre-Test
Adv - Pre
Mid-Test
Adv - Post
Post-Test
Semester End
80.0
Average Score
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
Motivational
Cognitive
Relational
Affective
GLF
Pre-Test Mid-Test
Motivational
Cognitive
Relational
Affective
GLF
59.26
50.67
56.00
60.00
56.48
58.00
52.33
55.00
59.83
56.29
PostTest
Semester
End
Pre to
End
Change
Pre to
End St.
Dev.
Pre to
Post
Effect
57.08
54.46
54.15
58.62
56.08
60.00
54.73
54.91
56.36
56.50
0.74
4.06
-1.09
-3.64
0.02
12.49
15.20
15.77
16.81
13.12
0.06
0.27
-0.07
-0.22
0.00
Campus High School - Control Group
Pre-Test
Mid-Test
Post-Test
Semester End
Relational
Affective
80.0
Average Score
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
Motivational
Cognitive
GLF
Campus High School – PCFI Results
Motivational
Control
En
d
te
r
t
Se
m
es
Ad
vPo
s
Ad
vPr
e
t
Te
s
tPo
s
id
-T
M
-T
es
t
es
t
65.00
63.00
61.00
59.00
57.00
55.00
53.00
51.00
49.00
47.00
45.00
Pr
e
Average Score
Program
Campus High School – PCFI Results
Cognitive
Control
En
d
te
r
Se
m
es
Ad
vPo
st
Ad
vPr
e
t
Te
s
tPo
s
id
-T
M
-T
es
t
es
t
65.00
63.00
61.00
59.00
57.00
55.00
53.00
51.00
49.00
47.00
45.00
Pr
e
Average Score
Program
Campus High School – PCFI Results
Relational
Control
En
d
te
r
t
Se
m
es
Ad
vPo
s
e
Ad
vPr
t
tTe
s
Po
s
id
-T
M
-T
es
t
es
t
65.00
63.00
61.00
59.00
57.00
55.00
53.00
51.00
49.00
47.00
45.00
Pr
e
Average Score
Program
Campus High School – PCFI Results
Affective
Control
En
d
te
r
st
Se
m
es
Ad
vPo
Ad
vPr
e
t
Te
s
tPo
s
id
-T
M
-T
es
t
es
t
65.00
63.00
61.00
59.00
57.00
55.00
53.00
51.00
49.00
47.00
45.00
Pr
e
Average Score
Program
Campus High School – PCFI Results
General Level of Functioning
Control
En
d
te
r
st
Se
m
es
Ad
vPo
Ad
vPr
e
t
Te
s
tPo
s
id
-T
M
Te
s
t
es
t
65.00
63.00
61.00
59.00
57.00
55.00
53.00
51.00
49.00
47.00
45.00
Pr
e-
Average Score
Program
High School Students - GPA
2.5
2
1.5
Program
Control
1
0.5
0
GPA '06-07
GPA '07-08
High School Students - Reading
222
221
220
219
Program
218
Control
217
216
215
Reading Fall '06
Reading Fall '07
High School Students - Math
227
226
225
224
Program
223
Control
222
221
220
219
Math Fall '06
Math Fall '07
High School Students - Missed Days
14
12
10
8
Program
6
Control
4
2
0
Attendance '06-07
Attendance '07-08
High School Students - Referrals
10
8
6
Program
4
Control
2
0
Referrals '06-07
Referrals '07-08
Behavioral Measures – Campus H.S.
Program
Control
Program
Control
Change
Size
0.18
0.12
Stan.
Dev.
0.83
0.66
Effect
Size
0.22
0.18
n.s.
Referrals '06-Referrals '07- Change
07
08
Size
2.85
7.94
5.09
3.54
9.48
5.94
Stan.
Dev.
5.28
5.25
Effect
Size
0.96
1.13
n.s
GPA '06-07
1.86
1.61
GPA '07-08
2.04
1.73
Sig. Dif?
Attendance
'06-07
11.81
9.19
Attendance
'07-08
3.72
5.43
Change
Size
-8.09
-3.76
Stan.
Dev.
8.26
7
Effect
Size
-0.98
-0.54
0.01
Program
Control
Math Fall '06
224.74
221.26
Math Fall
'07
221.35
225.67
Change
Size
-3.39
4.41
Stan.
Dev.
8.83
9.91
Effect
Size
-0.38
0.45
0.02
Program
Control
Reading Fall Reading Fall Change
'06
'07
Size
220.91
218.62
-2.29
219.35
217.04
-2.31
Stan.
Dev.
8.93
9.19
Effect
Size
-0.26
-0.25
Program
Control
n.s.
H.S. At risk youth Summary
Program Vs. Control Summary

PCFI



GPA Change Scores


N.S. difference at beginning or end of semester
Math Change Scores


Groups did not differ significantly at the beginning on
any scales
Groups did not differ significantly at the end on any
scales
N.S. difference at beginning or end of semester
Reading Change Scores

Control group started higher and made significantly
more change than program group
Haysville Teachers on Adventure Course (n =9)
Pre-Test
Post-Test
80.0
Average Score
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
Motivational
Cognitive
Relational
Affective
GLF
PCM Quality Educator Relations Seminar (n = 18)
August 29-30, 2007
Pre-Test
80.0
Post-Test
Average Score
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
Motivational
Cognitive
Relational
Affective
GLF
Teacher Capacity building
Day on the adventure course
Pre-Test
Motivational
62.67
Cognitive
62.67
Relational
56.89
Affective
60.00
GLF
60.56
Post-Test Change
67.56
4.89
68.89
6.22
62.67
5.78
65.78
5.78
66.22
5.66
Effect Size
0.69
0.66
0.67
0.80
0.78
Two-day course on student communication and motivation
Pre-Test
64.22
Motivational
Cognitive
58.00
Relational
58.22
Affective
59.33
GLF
59.94
Post-Test Change
65.78
1.56
62.67
4.67
61.33
3.11
61.11
1.78
62.72
2.78
Effect Size
0.23
0.44
0.35
0.18
0.37
Alternative H.S. Students
School-based groups running
autonomously using school staff
 Each semester the group comes to the
adventure course.

Haysville Alternative (n = 16)
Pre-Test
Pre-Adv.
Post-Adv.
Mid-Test
Post-Test
80.0
Average Score
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
Motivational
Pre-Test
Motivational
56.50
Cognitive
50.00
Relational
49.25
Affective
51.50
GLF
51.81
Cognitive
Relational
Pre-Adv. Post-Adv. Mid-Test Post-Test
59.00
64.75
59.20
61.50
56.50
63.25
52.53
54.25
55.75
63.50
52.00
49.25
57.75
68.25
58.40
59.50
57.25
64.94
55.53
56.13
Affective
Change
5.00
4.25
0.00
8.00
4.32
GLF
St. Dev.
10.82
9.58
11.24
13.22
8.77
Effect Size
0.46
0.44
0.00
0.61
0.49
Good news / Bad news




Prairie Elementary has invested fully, is moving
forward with teacher capacity building and
culture shifts.
Campus high school still teetering, trying to
decide what to do – wants us to treat the
problem kids, little ownership for culture change.
Alternative high school continues to use the
adventure course, and rely on us for consultation,
and achieving great results.
Comparing these three schools, seems that it
pays to commit over time, invest in internal
capacity, and integrate adventure more fully into
the educational climate.
Next Steps








Finish out school year, see what second semester
data after crossover looks like.
Definitely increase intensity of school-based
interventions in both schools.
Continue to track behavioral and PCFI data over
the next 12-18 months.
Stick with protocol as best we can.
Explore ways to increase motivational and
relational scales more.
Continue tracking CTC data
Explore gender differences as well as the
psychometrics of PCFI-8
Examine fidelity of implementation better