Study Citations

Botvin, G.J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Botvin, E.M., & Diaz, T. (1995). Long-Term Follow-up of Results from a Randomized Drug Abuse Prevention Trial in a White Middle-class Population. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 1106-1112.

General findings: Better implementation was associated with stronger effects.

Botvin, G.J., Dusenbury, L., Baker, E., James-Ortiz, S., & Kerner, J. (1989). A Skills Training Approach to Smoking Prevention among Hispanic Youth. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12, 279-296.

General findings: Only well-implemented programs had positive effects.

Hansen, W.B., Graham, J.W., Wolkenstein, B.H., & Rohrbach, L.A. (1991). Program Integrity as a Moderator of Prevention Program Effectiveness: Results for Fifth-Grade Students in the Adolescent Alcohol Prevention Trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 568-579.

General findings: Better implementation was associated with stronger effects.

Pentz, M.A., Trebow, E.A., Hansen, W.B., MacKinnon, D.P., Dwyer, J.H., Johnson, C.A., Flay, B.R., Daniels, S., & Cormack, C. (1990). Effects of Program Implementation on Adolescent Drug Use Behavior: The Midwestern Prevention Project (MPP). Evaluation Review, 14, 264-289.

General findings: Only well-implemented programs had positive effects.

Tobler, N.S. (1986). Meta-Analysis of 143 Adolescent Drug Prevention Programs: Quantitative Outcome Results of Program Participants Compared to a Control or Comparison Group. Journal of Drug Issues, 16, 537-567.

General findings: Well-implemented programs achieved effect sizes 0.34 greater than poorly-implemented programs. The magnitude of this difference is quite substantial, since all 143 programs reviewed by Tobler attained an overall mean effect of only 0.30.

Prevention Literature Illustrating the Variability of Implementation Across Settings

Studies Citations

Bush, P.J., Zuckerman, A.E., Taggart, V.S., Thiess, P.K., Peleg, E.O., & Smith, S.A. (1989). Cardiovascular Risk Factor Prevention in Black School Children: The Know Your Body Evaluation Project. Health Education Quarterly, 16, 215-227.

Reflection of low or poor implementation: No teacher conducted a proposed program as planned, either quantitatively or qualitatively.

Flannery, D.J., & Torquati, J. (1993). An Elementary School Substance Abuse Prevention Program: Teacher and Administrator Perspectives. Journal of Drug Education, 23, 387-397.

Reflection of low or poor implementation: 67 percent of teachers failed to implement a key program component.

Rohrbach, L.A., Graham, J.W., & Hansen, W.B. (1993). Diffusion of a School-Based Substance Abuse Prevention Program: Predictors of Program Implementation. Preventive Medicine, 22, 237-260.

Reflection of low or poor implementation: 79 percent of teachers omitted program components.

Taggart, V.S., Bush, P.J., Zuckerman, A.E., & Theiss, P.K. (1990). A Process Evaluation of the District of Columbia "Know Your Body" Project. Journal of School Health, 60, 60-66.

Reflection of low or poor implementation: Fewer than half (46 percent) of the teachers implemented a program effectively.

Tortu, S., & Botvin, G.J. (1989). School-Based Smoking Prevention: The Teacher Training Process. Preventive Medicine, 18, 280-289.

Reflection of low or poor implementation: Teachers omitted between 25 percent to 54 percent of program activities.

Resources

Durlak, J.A. (1998). Why Program Implementation Is Important. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 17 (2), pp. 5-18.