The authors examine the effectiveness of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.), con
trolling for maturation and pretest sensitization by using a Solomon Four-Group design with
latent variables. Results analyzed at the classroom level (440 classrooms, 10,000 students)
indicated that D.A.R.E. participation resulted in greater self-esteem, stronger institutional
bonds, and endorsement of fewer risky behaviors. The pretest was reactive on one of four
latent-variable outcomes: resistance to peer pressure. Maturation resulted in effects counter to
D.A.R.E.: lower self-esteem and weaker institutional bonds. Effects were stronger than those
reported in prior meta-analytic studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aiken, L.S., J.A. Stein, and P.M. Bentler.1994. Structural equation analyses of clinical sub-population differences and comparative treatment outcomes: Characterizing the daily lives of drug addictsJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology62:488-99.
2.
Bentler, P.M.1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural modelsPsychological Bulletin107:238-46.
Bentler, P.M., and J.A. Stein.1992. Structural equation models in medical researchStatistical Methods in Medical Research1:159-81.
5.
Biglan, A., and D.V. Ary.1985. Methodological issues in research on smoking prevention In Prevention research: Deterring drug abuse among children and adolescents, National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph No. 63, edited by C. S. Bell and R. Battjes, 170-95. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
6.
Botvin, G.J., and L. Dusenbury.1987. Substance abuse prevention and the promotion of competence In Primary prevention and promotion in the schools , edited by L. S. Bond and B. E. Compas, 146-78. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
Braver, M.C., and S.L. Braver.1988. Statistical treatment of the Solomon Four-Group design: A meta-analytic approachPsychological Bulletin104:150-4.
8.
Campbell, D.T., and J.C. Stanley.1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
9.
Chou, C.-P., and P.M. Bentler.1990. Model modification in covariance structure modeling: Comparison among likelihood ratio, Lagrange multiplier, and Wald testMultivariate Behavioral Research25:115-36.
10.
Clayton, R.R., A. Cattarello, L.E. Day, and K. P. Walden.1991. Persuasive communications and drug abuse prevention: An evaluation of the DARE program In Persuasive communication and drug abuse prevention, edited by L. Donohew, H. Sypher, and W. Bukowski, 295-313. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Clayton, R.R., A. Cattarello, and K.P. Walden.1991. Sensation seeking as a potential mediating variable for school-based prevention interventions: A two-year follow-up of DAREJournal of Health Communications3:229-39.
12.
Cohen, J.1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciencesHillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
DeJong, W.1987. A short-term evaluation of Project DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education): Preliminary indications of effectivenessJournal of Drug Education17:279-94.
14.
Dukes, R.L.1993. Long-term effects of drug education in two populations of Colorado students: A report to the Colorado Department of EducationDenver: Colorado Department of Education, High Risk Intervention Unit.
15.
Education Development Center.1988. Implementing project DARE: Drug abuse resistance education (implementation manualWashington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
16.
Ennett, S.T., N.S. Tobler, C.L. Ringwalt, and R. Flewelling.1994. How effective is Drug Abuse Resistance Education? A meta-analysis of Project DARE outcome evaluationsAmerican Journal of Public Health84:1394-401.
17.
Faine, J.R., and E. Bohlander, Jr.1989. DARE in Kentucky schools 1988-89: An evaluation of the drug abuse resistance education programBowling Green: Western Kentucky University Social Research Laboratory.
18.
Ghiselli, E.E., J.P. Campbell, and S. Zedeck.1981. Measurement theory for the behavioral sciencesSan Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
19.
Harmon, M.A.1993. Reducing the risk of drug involvement among early adolescentsEvaluation Review17:221-39.
20.
Hedges, L.V., and I. Olkin.1985. Statistical methods for meta-analysisNew York: Academic Press.
21.
Moskowitz, J.M.1993. Why reports of outcome evaluations are often biased or uninterpretableEvaluation Program Planning16:1-9.
22.
Murray, D.M., and P.J. Hannan.1990. Planning for the appropriate analysis in school-based drug-use prevention studiesJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology58:458-68
23.
. Ringwalt, C., S.T. Ennett, and K.D. Holt.1991. An outcome evaluation of Project DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance EducationHealth Education Research6:327-37.
24.
Rogers, E.M.1993. Diffusion and re-invention of project DARE In Organizational aspects of health communication campaigns: What works? , edited by T. E. Backer and E. M. Rogers, 139-62. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
Rosenbaum, D.P., R.P. Flewelling, S.L. Bailey, C.L. Ringwalt, and D.L. Wilkinson.1994. Cops in the classroom: A longitudinal evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DAREJournal of Research in Crime and Delinquency31:3-31.
26.
Rosenberg, M.1965. Society and the adolescent self-imagePrinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
Sabers, D.L., and M.R. Franklin, Jr.1985-1986. Increased power through design and analysisJournal of Experimental Education54:101-4.
28.
Solomon, R.L.1949. An extension of control group designPsychological Bulletin46:137-50.
29.
Tobler, N.S.1992. Meta-analysis of adolescent drug prevention programs: Final reportRockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
30.
Wysong, E., R. Aniskiewicz, and D. Wright.1994. Truth and DARE: Tracking drug education to graduation and as symbolic politicsSocial Problems41:448-72.
