The study reports the treatment integrity and acceptability of Check & Connect (C&C), after implementation by 234 adult mentors with 341 students with social, emotional, and behavioral problems. To address the gaps in the treatment acceptability literature, the study further explored (a) the relation between treatment integrity and treatment acceptability of C&C and (b) the predicted effects of variables investigated in the analog studies on mentors’ treatment acceptability ratings. Overall, mentors implemented C&C with high integrity perceived as an acceptable intervention. Regression analyses showed that mentors who perceived C&C as acceptable implemented it with significantly greater integrity than mentors with lower acceptability ratings. Dosage as well as student and mentor characteristics did not predict mentors’ treatment acceptability ratings. Implications for practice and research are discussed.
AllinderR. M.OatsR. G. (1997). Effects of acceptability on teachers’ implementation of curriculum-based measurement and student achievement in mathematics computation. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 113–120. doi:10.1177/074193259701800205
2.
Center for Adolescent Research in Schools. (2014). The CARS classroom-based interventions manual. Bethlehem, PA: Center for Adolescent Research in Schools, Lehigh University.
3.
ChenC.GreenbergerE.FarruggiaS.BushK.DongQ. (2003). Beyond parents and peers: The role of important non-parental adults (VIPS) in adolescent development in China and the United States. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 35–50.
4.
ClarkL.ElliottS. N. (1988). The influence of treatment strength information on knowledgeable teachers’ pretreatment evaluations of social skills training methods. Professional School Psychology, 3, 241–251. doi:10.1037/h0090567
5.
CowanR. J.SheridanS. M. (2003). Investigating the acceptability of behavioral interventions in applied conjoint behavioral consultation: Moving from analog conditions to naturalistic settings. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 1–21.
6.
EpsteinM. H.MatsonJ. L.ReppA.HelselW. J. (1986). Acceptability of treatment alternatives as a function of teacher status and student level. School Psychology Review, 15, 84–90.
7.
FairbanksL. D.StinnettT. A. (1997). Effects of professional group membership, intervention type and diagnostic label on treatment. Psychology in the Schools, 34, 329–335.
8.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
9.
FinnC. A.SladeczekI. E. (2001). Assessing the social validity of behavioral interventions: A review of treatment acceptability measures. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 176–206.
10.
FredricksJ. A.BlumenfeldP. C.ParisA. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
11.
GreshamF. M. (2014). Measuring and analyzing treatment integrity data in research. In Hagermoser SanettiL. M.KratochwillT. R. (Eds.), Treatment integrity: A foundation for evidence-based practice in applied psychology (pp. 109–130). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
12.
HarrisK. R.PrellerD. M.GrahamS. (1990). Acceptability of cognitive-behavioral and behavioral interventions among teachers. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 573–587.
13.
HarrisonJ. R.StateT. M.EvansS. W.SchambergT. (2016). Construct and predictive validity of social acceptability: Scores from high school teacher ratings on the School Intervention Rating Form. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18, 111–123.
14.
HawkinsR. P. (1991). Is social validity what we are interested in? Argument for a functional approach. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 205–213.
15.
HeppenJ. B.ZeiserK.HoltzmanD. J.O’CummingsM.ChristensonS.PohlA. (2018). Efficacy of the Check & Connect mentoring program for at-risk general education high school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11, 56–82.
16.
KanchewaS.RhodesJ. E.SchwartzS. E. O.OlshoL. (2014). An investigation of same-versus cross-gender matching for boys in formal school-based mentoring programs. Applied Developmental Science, 18, 31–45. doi:10.1080/10888691.2014.876251
17.
KernL.EvansS. W.LewisT. J.StateM.WeistM. D.WillsH. P. (2015). CARS Comprehensive intervention for secondary students with emotional and behavioral problems: Conceptualization and development. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 23, 195–205.
18.
KernL.HarrisonJ. R.CusterB. E.MehtaP. D. (in press). Factors that enhance the quality of relationships between mentors and mentees during Check & Connect. Behavioral Disorders.
19.
LaneK. L.Beebe-FrankenbergerM. E.LambrosK. M.PiersonM. (2001). Designing effective interventions for children at-risk for antisocial behavior: An integrated model of components necessary for making valid inferences. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 365–379.
20.
LaneK. L.BocianK. M.MacMillanD. L.GreshamF. M. (2004). Treatment integrity: An essential—but often forgotten—component of school-based interventions. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 48, 36–43.
21.
LittleR. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198–1202.
22.
MarchJ. S.ParkerJ. D. A.SullivanK.StallingsP.ConnersC. K. (1997). The Multi-Dimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC): Factor structure, reliability, and validity. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 554–565. doi:10.1097/00004583-199704000-00019
23.
MautoneJ. A.DuPaulG. J.JitendraA. K.TrescoK. E.JunodR. V.VolpeR. J. (2009). The relationship between treatment integrity and acceptability of reading interventions for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 919–931. doi:10.1002/pits.20434
24.
MaynardB. R.KjellstrandE. K.ThompsonA. M. (2014). Effects of check and connect on attendance, behavior, and academics: A randomized effectiveness trial. Research on Social Work Practice, 24, 296–309. doi:10.1177/1049731513497804
25.
MiramontesN. Y.MarchantM.HeathM. A.FischerL. (2011). Social validity of a positive behavior interventions and support model. Education & Treatment of Children, 34, 445–468.
26.
NastasiB. K.TruscottS. D. (2000). Acceptability research in school psychology: Current trends and future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 117–122.
27.
NewmanL.WagnerM.KnokeyA.MarderC.NagleK.ShaverD.WeiX. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011-3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
28.
PowerT. J.HessL. E.BennettD. S. (1995). The acceptability of interventions for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder among elementary and middle school teachers. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 16, 238–243.
29.
PowersK.HagansK.LinnM. (2017). A mixed-method efficacy and fidelity study of Check and Connect. Psychology in the Schools, 54, 1019–1033. doi:10.1002/pits.22038
30.
ReimersT. M.WackerD. P. (1988). Parents’ ratings of the acceptability of behavioral treatment recommendations made in an outpatient clinic: A preliminary analysis of the influence of treatment effectiveness. Behavioral Disorders, 14, 7–15.
31.
ReimersT. M.WackerD. P.KoepplG. (1987). Acceptability of behavioral interventions: A review of the literature. School Psychology Review, 16, 212–227.
32.
ReynoldsC. R.KamphausR. W. (2004). Manual for the Behavior Assessment System for Children (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.
33.
ReynoldsW. M. (2002). Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale: Professional manual (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
34.
RhodesJ. B.ReddyR.GrossmanJ. B.LeeJ. M. (2002). Volunteer mentoring relationships with minority youth: An analysis of same-versus cross-race matches. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2114–2133. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02066.x
35.
SanettiL. H., & Kratochwill (2014). Introduction: Treatment integrity in psychological research and practice. In Hagermose SanettirL. M.KratochwillT. R. (Eds.), Treatment Integrity: A foundation for evidence-based practice in applied psychology (pp. 3–11). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
36.
SinclairM. F.ChristensonS. L.ElevoD. L.HurleyC. M. (1998). Dropout prevention for youth with disabilities: Efficacy of a sustained school engagement procedure. Exceptional Children, 65, 7–21.
37.
SinclairM. F.ChristensonS. L.ThurlowM. L. (2005). Promoting school completion of urban secondary youth with emotional or behavioral disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 465–482.
38.
Sterling-TurnerH. E.WatsonT. S. (2002). An analog investigation of the relationship between treatment acceptability and treatment integrity. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 39–50.
WheelerM. E.KellerT. E.DuBoisD. L. (2010). Review of three recent randomized trials of school-based mentoring: Making sense of mixed findings. Social Policy Report. Society for Research in Child Development, 24(3), 1–21.
41.
WittJ. C.ElliottS. N. (1985). Acceptability of classroom intervention strategies. In KratochwillT. R. (Ed.), Advances in school psychology (pp. 251–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
WittJ. C.MartensB. K.ElliottS. N. (1984). Factors affecting teachers’ judgments of the acceptability of behavioral interventions: Time involvement, behavior problem severity, and type of intervention. Behavior Therapy, 15, 204–209.
43.
WittJ. C.RobbinsJ. R. (1985). Acceptability of reductive interventions for the control of inappropriate child behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 59–67.
44.
WolfM. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.
