This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by McGraw, S. A. Articles by Edmundson, E. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by McGraw, S. A. Articles by Edmundson, E. W. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Using Process Data To Explain Outcomes

An Illustration From the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH)

New England Research Institutes

Deborah E. Sellers

New England Research Institutes

Carolyn C. Johnson

Tulane University

Elaine J. Stone

National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute

Kathryn J. Bachman

University of California, San Diego

Judith Bebchuk

New England Research Institutes

Russell V. Luepker

University of Minnesota

Elizabeth W. Edmundson

University of Texas

The purpose of this article is to illustrate the use of process evaluation for understanding study outcomes. Data from the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH), a large school-based field trial, are used. Teacher characteristics, measures of classroom curriculum implementation, and competing influences are linked to changes in dietary knowledge, intentions, and self-efficacy of students in the intervention schools. Multiple regression analyses indicate that teacher charactenstics did not predict program implementation. Teacher characteristics and program fidelity, or the number of modifications made to the classroom curriculum during implementation, had direct and independent effects on student outcomes.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Bisset and L. Potvin Expanding our conceptualization of program implementation: lessons from the genealogy of a school-based nutrition program Health Educ. Res., October 1, 2007; 22(5): 737 - 746. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Heimendinger, T. Uyeki, A. Andhara, J. A. Marshall, S. Scarbro, E. Belansky, and L. Crane Coaching Process Outcomes of a Family Visit Nutrition and Physical Activity Intervention Health Educ Behav, February 1, 2007; 34(1): 71 - 89. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Martens, P. van Assema, T. Paulussen, H. Schaalma, and J. Brug Krachtvoer: process evaluation of a Dutch programme for lower vocational schools to promote healthful diet Health Educ. Res., October 1, 2006; 21(5): 695 - 704. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. P. Saunders, M. H. Evans, and P. Joshi Developing a Process-Evaluation Plan for Assessing Health Promotion Program Implementation: A How-To Guide Health Promot Pract, April 1, 2005; 6(2): 134 - 147. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Ronda, P. Van Assema, E. Ruland, M. Steenbakkers, and J. Brug The Dutch Heart Health Community Intervention 'Hartslag Limburg': design and results of a process study Health Educ. Res., October 1, 2004; 19(5): 596 - 607. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. H. Weiss How Can Theory-Based Evaluation Make Greater Headway? Eval Rev, August 1, 1997; 21(4): 501 - 524. [Abstract] [PDF]