2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.01.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing the most powerful analysis method for school-based intervention studies with alcohol, tobacco, and other drug outcomes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Student's t-tests for independent samples were used to detect differences at the baseline between the groups where appropriate. A posteriori power analysis of the study was performed according to the formulae in Janega et al [28]. Data are reported as mean±SD or as 95% confidence interval (CI).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Student's t-tests for independent samples were used to detect differences at the baseline between the groups where appropriate. A posteriori power analysis of the study was performed according to the formulae in Janega et al [28]. Data are reported as mean±SD or as 95% confidence interval (CI).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Across the 2 school-based samples, the intraclass correlations (ICC) for the substance use outcomes were relatively high, ranging between 0.02 and 0.08. 41 Hence, in order to account for the school-level random effects, multilevel logistic regressions were conducted using the GLIMMIX procedure on all substance use outcomes for both samples except the marijuana and hard drug use outcomes in the Russian sample. In the Russian data, one or more schools had one or none recent marijuana or hard drug users.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A disadvantage of this model, however, is that it includes only cases with data from both time points. We use ANCOVA as our primary method of analysis, as it generally offers greater power to detect differences between conditions (Janega et al 2004a;Venter et al 2002), but not always (Janega et al 2004b). Due to the complementary strengths and limitations of each model, however, we also report on whether the time by condition analysis confirmed the findings for our primary outcomes.…”
Section: Analysis Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%