Study 1
Haft and colleagues (2019) used a quasi-experimental design to evaluate the Eye to Eye program. There were a total of 231 students who participated in the study. Of this sample, 99 youth with a learning disability or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (LD/ADHD) participated in the Eye to Eye program and comprised the mentored treatment group, 51 non-mentored (NM) youth with LD/ADHD comprised the control-NM group, and 81 typically developing (TD) youth without LD/ADHD comprised the control-TD group. The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the comparisons between the mentored treatment group and the control-NM group.
Participants in the treatment group were recruited from 18 mentor schools that were participating in the Eye to Eye program. Participants in the two control groups were recruited from schools that were not implementing the mentoring program but were in the same geographic regions as the mentor schools. While not matched, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in age, gender, race, and participation in extracurricular activities. However, since the control group-TD reported a statistically significant higher family affluence, compared with the mentored treatment group and control-NM group, family affluence was controlled for in study analyses.
Across the three study groups, the average age of mentees was about 12 years, and slightly more than half were male (54 to 60 percent). There was a greater proportion of nonwhite students (53 percent) in the mentored treatment group, compared with the control-NM group (35 percent) and the control-TD group (39 percent); however, the differences were not statistically significant. There were also no statistically significant differences between the mentored treatment group students and control-NM group students in composition of diagnoses (LD, ADHD, or combined LD/ADHD).
The outcome measures were collected through self-report scales on the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition (BASC-2), for anxiety, depression, interpersonal relations, and self-esteem. All scales were assessed with individual items rated on a 4-point scale from “never occurs” to “almost always occurs”. These scales were administered at baseline (i.e., the beginning of the program) and at the end of the program year.
To evaluate the effects of the Eye to Eye program on outcome scores, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted across groups (mentored, control-NM, and control-TD) over time (pretest to posttest), controlling for family affluence and adjusting for multiple comparisons. Program effects were identified as statistically significant interactions between group and time and were followed up with tests for simple main effects and the computation of a Reliable Change Index (RCI). No subgroup analyses were conducted.