| Literature DB >> 30658607 |
Meredith A Whitley1, William V Massey2, Martin Camiré3, Mish Boutet4, Amanda Borbee5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The growing number of sport-based youth development interventions provide a potential avenue for integrating sport meaningfully into the U.S. public health agenda. However, efficacy and quality must be reliably established prior to widespread implementation.Entities:
Keywords: Physical activity; Program; Research; USA; Youth development
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30658607 PMCID: PMC6339434 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-6387-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1PRISMA flow diagram for research on sport-based youth development interventions in the U.S.
Summary table1
| Intervention /Author (year) | Intervention Characteristics | Participants | Methodology | Analysis Strategy | Outcomes Addressed | Main Findings | Study Quality | Summary of Study Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summer Sport and Life Skills Camps | ||||||||
| Anderson-Butcher et al. (2013) | Participants attended a 4-week sport-based PYD summer camp for 5 h per day. | Mixed methods, single group | Dependent | Social competence, sport-specific social competence, belonging | Weak; coherence between purpose and qualitative method. No philosophical assumptions discussed | Evidence of selection bias; no comparison group; large percentage of participants who did not complete measures; lack of blinded outcomes; less than optimal scale reliabilities; philosophical assumptions, data collection methods, and data analysis methods not reported in detail | ||
| Anderson-Butcher et al. (2014) | Participants attended a 4-week sport-based PYD summer camp for 5 h per day. | Quantitative, single group | Latent growth curve modeling | Social competence, sport-specific competence, belonging, self-control, effort, teamwork, social responsibility | Weak | Evidence of selection bias; no comparison group; lack of reporting on withdrawals; lack of blinded outcomes | ||
| Gano-Overway et al. (2009) | See Newton et al. | Quantitative, single group, cross-sectional | Test of mediation via structural equation modelling | Caring climate, emotional self-regulation, empathic self-efficacy, prosocial and antisocial behaviors | Weak | Cross-sectional study design; unable to account for likely covariates; amount of variance explained in models suggests other factors are salient in explaining behaviors | ||
| McDavid et al. (2015) | Participants attended a 4-week summer PYD through PA program for 6.5 h per day. | Quantitative, single group | Latent variable longitudinal structural equation panel modeling | Self-worth, hope | Weak | Single group; non-causal design; measurement time lag; small effect sizes | ||
| McDavid et al. (2017) | Participants attended a 4-week summer PYD through PA program for 7 h per day. Group leaders were randomly assigned to receive standard training or training grounded in SDT. | Quantitative, randomized control trial | Multi-level latent variable modeling, mediational analysis | Psychological need support, psychological need satisfaction, hope, self-worth | Moderate | Lack of intervention effect; non-blinded outcomes | ||
| Newton et al. (2007) | Participants attended a 5-week summer camp sponsored by the NYSP. Camp sessions were attended daily and consisted of 4 h of PA, 1 hour of health education, lunch, and snacks. Groups were separated based on groups leader training. One group received a caring climate curriculum while other received the standard PYD curriculum. | Quantitative, two-group, cross-sectional | Multivariate and univariate tests of covariance | Caring, perceived motivational climate, empathic concern, enjoyment, anticipated future participation | Weak | Evidence of selection bias; non-blinded measures; lack of control for confounding variables; no information reported on dropouts; post-test only design | ||
| Riciputi et al. (2016) | Participants attended a 4-week summer PYD through PA program for 6.5 h per day. | Qualitative, case study | Thematic analysis | Character, perceptions of program impact | Philosophical underpinnings consistent with theory and method used in study | Use of grounded theory analysis techniques without completing a grounded theory study | ||
| Riley & Anderson-Butcher (2012) | Participants attended a 4-week summer PYD through PA program for 6 h per day. | Qualitative, general | Grounded theory approach | Camp outcomes for youth participants from parent perspective | Lack of methodological coherence | Philosophical assumptions and specific methodology not reported; data analysis was a “grounded theory approach” but this was not consistent with study methodology | ||
| Riley et al. (2017; Riley, 2013) | Participants attended a 4-week sport-based PYD summer camp for 6 h per day. | Quantitative, single group pre-post | Multi-level modeling (youth outcomes nested within coach groups) | Social skills, youth-perceived staff practices | Weak | Evidence of selection bias; lack of comparison group; non-blinded outcomes | ||
| Ullrich-French & McDonough (2013) | Participants attended a 4-week summer PYD through PA program for 6 h per day. Participants had to complete Year 1 of the summer PYD program and be eligible to come back in Year 2. | Quantitative, single group, longitudinal | Logistic regression, multivariate analysis of covariance | Leader support, social competence, physical competence, self-worth, attraction to PA, hope | Weak | Lack of data from those non-returners; lack of blinded outcome measures | ||
| Ullrich-French et al. (2012) | Participants attended a 4-week summer PYD through PA program for 6 h per day. | Quantitative, single group | Repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance | Leader support, social competence, physical competence, self-worth, attraction to PA, hope | Weak | Lack of control group; lack of blinded outcome measures; short intervention and follow-up period | ||
| Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility | ||||||||
| Cryan & Martinek (2017) | Intervention was an after-school soccer program grounded in TPSR principles. Participants attended the program 2 hours per day, 2 days per week, for 9 weeks. | Mixed methods, single group pre-post | Deductive analysis; dependent | Personal and social responsibility | Weak; lack of coherence | Single group study; small sample size; selection bias; inconsistent attendance during intervention; non-blinded outcomes | ||
| Hayden et al. (2012; Hayden, 2010) | Intervention was a school-based program that used life skills programming and physical activity within the TPSR model. Students met twice per week for 1 hour over the course of the school year. | Qualitative, program evaluation | Content analysis; descriptive statistics | TPSR implementation, academics, social-emotional supports | Coherence between theory, methods, and analysis. No philosophical assumptions discussed | Lack of female participants; lack of differentiation between researcher and advisor roles; disconnect between cultural norms of key stakeholders | ||
| Jacobs (2016a) | Intervention was school-based and conducted within a volleyball unit of a physical education curriculum using TPSR principles. The study lasted 15 days. | Quantitative, quasi-experimental | Factorial analysis of variance | Youth experience, transfer of life skills | Weak | Lack of control for possible confounding variables; non-blinded outcomes; high risk for type I statistical error given the amount of analyses | ||
| Jacobs (2016b) | This qualitative paper examined program experiences in a community-based sport organization. | Qualitative, phenomeno-graphic | Deductive analysis | Perceptions of life skill transfer, youth cognitive processes | Lack of methodological coherence | Short interviews; lack of consistent methodology; highly deductive coding procedure | ||
| Martinek et al. (2006) | TPSR-based program in which youth leaders create physical activity lessons that reinforce life skills. Length, duration, and intensity of intervention were not reported. | Qualitative, case study | Case description | Developmental stages of youth leadership | Lack of methodological coherence | Philosophical assumptions, sampling strategy, sample description, data analysis methods, and validity assessments not reported | ||
| Melendez & Martinek (2015) | Intervention used sport clubs grounded in TPSR principles, mentoring, and youth leadership training. Intervention length, frequency, and intensity were not reported. | Qualitative, multiple case study | Deductive analysis | Program experiences | Philosophical assumptions, theory, and methods showed coherence | Small sample and lack of data regarding skills learned outside of program; deductive analysis | ||
| Miller (1997) | Intervention was school-based and conducted within a physical education course. Those in the intervention group participated in a TPSR-based socio-moral growth curriculum for 2 hours a day, 3 days a week, for 28 weeks. | Quantitative, quasi-experimental | Analysis of co-variance | Distributive justice reasoning, perceived competence | Strong | Floor and ceiling effects of the TEOSQ prevented meaningful analysis of that data | ||
| Schilling et al. (2007) | Intervention was a youth-led TPSR program that met 1 day per week throughout the school year and for 3 weeks in the summer. | Qualitative, general | Inductive and deductive analysis | Youth perceptions of program and program commitment | Lack of methodological coherence | No specific philosophical or methodological underpinnings | ||
| Walsh (2008) | TPSR-based career club program in which sport is used to teach responsibility and older and younger participants are paired to work within a mentoring relationship. Program met once per week, for 90 min, across a 9-week timespan. | Qualitative, case study | Inductive analysis | Employment, education | Conflicting paradigms of subjectivity and objectivity noted | Perceptions of employment not tied to actual employment outcomes | ||
| Walsh et al. (2010) | TPSR-based coaching club intervention that included 45 sessions over two academic school years. Sessions were provided once a week for one hour. | Qualitative, program evaluation | Inductive and deductive analysis | Transfer of TPSR goals | Coherence between philosophical assumptions and sampling strategy | Authors discuss grounded theory analysis techniques, but did not conduct a grounded theory study | ||
| Walsh et al. (2012) | Kinesiology Career Club is a TPSR-based program aimed at helping high school youth explore future careers in kinesiology. Program met within a school setting, twice per week for 75 min over a 10- to 12-week period. | Qualitative, program evaluation | Inductive and deductive analysis | Impact of KCC | Methodology, data collection, and data analysis showed coherence | Lack of philosophical underpinnings | ||
| Walsh et al. (2015) | Kinesiology Career Club is a TPSR-based program aimed at helping high school youth explore future careers in kinesiology. Program met within a school setting, twice per week for 75 min over a 10- to 12-week period. | Qualitative, case study | Inductive and deductive analysis | Mentors perceptions of KCC | Methodology, data collection, and data analysis showed coherence | Lack of philosophical underpinnings | ||
| Whitley et al. (2016) | TPSR-based program developed to address the challenges faced by refugee youth. Program met once per week for 60 min (number of weeks was not reported). | Qualitative, methodology not explicitly reported | Hierarchical content analysis | Program experiences | Lack of methodological coherence | Philosophical assumptions, methodology, and sampling strategy not explicitly addressed | ||
| Whitley et al. (2017) | TPSR model used to develop an 8-session program in collaboration between Southern Queens Park Association and Adelphi University. Visit to Adelphi University during 3rd and 10th week of programming to introduce participants to higher education, attend a class, dinner at campus cafeteria, meeting with admissions representative, and a sport event. | Qualitative, community-based participatory research | Inductive and deductive analysis | Program implementation and youth development outcomes | Methodological coherence | Small sample size; limited program space; deductive nature of the analysis | ||
| Wright & Burton (2008) | Intervention was a school-based Tai Chi program grounded in TPSR principles and conducted within a physical education course. Program met twice per week for 50 min over a 10-week timeframe. | Qualitative, program evaluation | Inductive and deductive analysis | Program characteristics | Coherence between framework, methodology, and analysis | Lack of philosophical underpinnings to study; reliance on deductive coding | ||
| Wright et al. (2010) | Intervention was school-based and conducted within a physical education course. Those in the intervention group received a Tai Chi intervention grounded in TPSR principles for approximately 18 weeks. | Mixed methods, quasi-experimental, program evaluation | Inductive and deductive analysis; descriptive | Grades, tardiness, absences, conduct | Weak; framework, methodology, and methods were coherent. Data analysis limited the results | Selection bias; unclear blinding protocols; gender differences not explored; study restricted to one school; lack of control for known co-variates; deductive qualitative analysis | ||
| Wright et al. (2012) | TPSR-based Kung-Fu program that took place at a local YMCA. Program met once per week for 45–60 min across an academic school year. | Qualitative, case study | Inductive and deductive analysis | Program experiences | Methodology, data collection, and data analysis showed coherence | Lack of philosophical underpinnings; lack of rich data | ||
| Girls on the Run | ||||||||
| Beller (2013) | Participants engaged in a 12-week program that meets twice per week for 1.5 h per session. The program combines training for a 5k with a positive youth development curricula. The curricula includes self-awareness and self-care (part 1), teambuilding, cooperation, and community building (part 2), and social contribution (part 3). | Quantitative, case-control | Tests of group difference (t-test, ANOVA, chi-square) | Body image satisfaction, PA | Weak | Self-reported PA data; selection bias; retrospective design; lack of control for potential confounding variable; non-blinded measures | ||
| Debate (2002) | See above. | Quantitative, single group | Dependent | Self-esteem, body image satisfaction, eating attitudes and behaviors | Weak | Single-group study; lack of control for confounding variables; self-reported outcomes | ||
| Debate & Delmar (2006) | See above. | Quantitative, single group | Pre-post differences ( | Self-esteem, body image satisfaction, eating attitudes and behaviors, attitudes towards PA, empowerment, self-reported PA | Weak | Single-group study; lack of control for confounding variables; self-reported outcomes; different levels of exposure | ||
| Debate & Otero-Fisher (2005) | See above. | Quantitative, single group pre-post | Pre-post differences ( | Self-esteem, body image satisfaction, eating attitudes and behaviors, attitudes towards PA, empowerment, self-reported PA | Weak | Single-group study; lack of control for confounding variables; self-reported outcomes | ||
| Debate et al. (2009) | See above. | Quantitative, single group | Dependent | Self-esteem, body size satisfaction, PA, PA commitment | Weak | Single-group study; large amounts of missing data; use of partial measures could question validity; unclear blinding protocols | ||
| Pettee Gabriel et al. (2011) | See above. | Quantitative, quasi-experimental | Repeated measures analysis of covariance | Self-esteem, body size satisfaction, PA, PA commitment | Weak | Selection bias due to low enrollment, non-blinded outcomes; data collected in one school district could confound results; possible seasonal differences in PA; inconsistent administration of survey data | ||
| Rauscher et al. (2013) | See above. | Mixed methods, single group, formative evaluation | Inductive content analysis; dependent | Body consciousness, body esteem, nutrition, self-efficacy, attitude toward PA and mentorship | Weak; lack of methodological coherence | Selection bias; lack of reporting on withdraws; non-blinded outcomes; qualitative data lacked depth | ||
| Waldron (2007) | See above. | Mixed methods, single group | Dependent | Perceived competence, program experiences | Weak; lack of methodological coherence | Single-group study; selection bias; non-blinded outcomes; small sample size; use of grounded theory coding, without grounded theory methodology | ||
| Playworks | ||||||||
| Beyler et al. (2013); Fortson et al. (2013); London et al. (2013) | See above. | Randomized controlled trial, cross-sectional analysis only (i.e., post-intervention comparison) | Multi-level regression models | Physical activity, school climate, student behavior | Strong | Single time point measurement; limited accelerometry data | ||
| London et al. (2015) | See above. | Qualitative, program evaluation | Grounded theory approach | Recess climate | Partial methodological coherence; incongruence between study design and analysis techniques (i.e., grounded theory) | Lack of participant descriptions; unclear use of grounded theory methodology/analysis | ||
| Madsen et al. (2011) | School-based program in which full-time trained coaches work in schools and teach and coordinate a variety of playground sports and games; work with classroom teachers to provide additional PA opportunities; provide a peer leadership program; and work to generate family and community involvement. | Quantitative, quasi-experimental, retrospective time series | Mixed effects linear regression | Internal and external assets as assessed by the California Healthy Kids Survey | Strong | Retrospective design; lack of control over data collection processes | ||
| Massey et al. (2017) | See above. | Mixed methods, quasi-experimental, program evaluation | Repeated measures analysis of variance; factorial ANOVA; interpretive content analysis | Adult-student playground interactions, playground behavior, classroom behavior | Moderate, partial methodological coherence | Lack of comparison group at baseline for observations; non-randomized design; small sample for classroom observations; lack of detail on philosophical underpinnings and sampling strategy | ||
| Massey et al. (2018) | See above. | Qualitative, program evaluation | Interpretive content analysis | Leadership | Partial methodological coherence | Lack of detail on philosophical underpinnings and sampling strategy | ||
| The First Tee | ||||||||
| Brunelle et al. (2007) | Intervention was a condensed 1-week (5 sessions of 45 min each) version of The First Tee program that combines golf lessons with life skill development. | Quantitative, single group | Repeated measures analysis of covariance; regression analysis | Social responsibility, interpersonal reactivity, social interests, goals, community service | Weak | No true control group; self-report measures; short intervention time-frame; large percentage of loss to follow-up | ||
| Weiss et al. (2013) | Intervention consists of a program in which golf and life skills are taught in a systematic and progressive program that addresses interpersonal, self-management, goal setting, and advanced social skills. Program length, duration, or intensity was not reported. | Qualitative, interpretive | Inductive and deductive content analysis | Interpersonal and self-management skills, transfer of skills to other domains | Methodological coherence from theory to method to analysis | Philosophical assumptions to study not addressed | ||
| Weiss et al. (2016) | See above. | N1 = 564 (405 in First Tee group) | Quantitative, longitudinal, quasi-experimental | Multivariate analysis of covariance (group difference); latent growth modeling (intervention group only) | Moderate | Non-blinded outcomes; unclear sampling procedures in Study 1; baseline differences in groups in Study 1 | ||
| Play It Smart | ||||||||
| Petitpas et al. (2004) | Program is grounded in a life skills development framework and implemented through a coordinated effort of academic coaches (working 20 h per week to coordinate), parents, school personnel, and community leaders. | Quantitative, single group, longitudinal | Descriptive statistics | ACT/SAT scores, GPA, community service, self-reported health behaviors | Weak | Lack of methodological detail to judge the rigor of the data | ||
| Van Gorden et al. (2010) | See above. | Qualitative, general | Grounded theory coding | Life skills | Lack of methodological coherence | Data from exit interviews that were administered by academic coach; lack of philosophical or methodological underpinning | ||
| Urban Squash | ||||||||
| Green (2010) | Intervention is an academic sports mentoring program. Participants attend 3 days per week for 3 h each day (90 min of homework, 90 min of squash) across the school year. | Quantitative, quasi-experimental | Analysis of covariance | Intellectual functioning, academic functioning, academic achievement | Moderate | Small sample; high attrition rate; lack of power for number of analyses | ||
| Hemphill & Richards (2016) | See above. | Qualitative, program evaluation | Descriptive statistics; grounded theory coding | Valued aspects of program, how outcomes may have transferred out of program | Methodology, sampling and data collection consistent | Lack of philosophical underpinnings to study; use of grounded theory analysis without doing a grounded theory study | ||
| Hill (2012) | See above. | Quantitative, quasi-experimental | Repeated measures analysis of variance | Intellectual functioning, academic functioning, academic achievement, social support | Moderate | Lack of specificity in measurement; attrition rate; small sample | ||
| Coach Across America | ||||||||
| LPHI (2016a; 2016b) | Up2Us Sports is a national coalition of more than 1000 organizations committed to using sports for social change. Striving to harness the power of sports to reduce youth violence and promote health and academic success, Up2Us Sports organizes nationwide community training programs. | Approximately 1000 participants in older group and approximately 1100 in younger group | Mixed methods, quasi-experimental; qualitative general | Analysis of covariance; hierarchical linear regression modeling; content analysis | Fitness, high impact attributes (HIA), self-reported nutrition, coach quality, dose | Moderate; lack of methodological coherence | Unclear information on missing data; lack of control for confounding variables | |
| Windham et al. (2014) | See above. | Quantitative, single group | Hierarchical linear regression | Self-reported physical activity, self-reported nutrition behaviors, HIA | Weak | Large amounts of missing data; no information on reliability or validity of measures; unclear blinding procedures | ||
| Doc Wayne | ||||||||
| D’Andrea et al. (2013) | This intervention took place within a trauma treatment facility. Coaches were trained to deliver trauma-sensitive sports, and the sport program took place once per week, for 1 hour, over a 5-month period. | Quantitative, quasi-experimental | Repeated measures analysis of variance | Behavior within the program, mental health | Weak | Likely selection bias; unclear description of control for possible confounding variables; unclear blinding procedures; lack of reliability reported for observational measures | ||
| Program Evaluation Report (n.d.) | Trauma-informed sport league for youth in residential treatment. Timing, duration, and dosage not reported. | Quantitative, single group | Pre-post effect sizes | Life goals, social conflicts, emotional regulation, behavior, stress, challenges | Weak | Likely selection bias; unclear description of control for possible confounding variables; unclear blinding procedures; lack of reliability reported for observational measures; missing data | ||
| Sport Hartford | ||||||||
| Bruening et al. (2015) | Mentor-based program that incorporated sport, physical activity, nutrition, and life skills. Sessions were twice a week for 2 hours over a 28-week period. | Qualitative, general | Deductive analysis | Factors that influence program outcomes | Coherence between theory, method, and analysis | Lack of philosophical underpinnings | ||
| Bruening et al. (2009) | Mentor-based program that incorporated sport, physical activity, nutrition, and life skills. Sessions were once a week for 2 hours over a 12-week period. | Qualitative, multiple case study | Unclear | Behavior change, views of self, views on health | Lack of methodological coherence | Age and developmental ranges of participants; lack of philosophical underpinnings, theory, and specific analytical procedures | ||
| Fuller et al. (2013) | Mentor-based program that incorporated sport, physical activity, nutrition, and life skills. Sessions were once a week for 2 hours over 2 12-week periods. | Qualitative, methodology not explicitly reported | Deductive analysis | Program evaluation | Coherence between theory, method, and analysis | Three of 8 participants were brothers; lack of philosophical underpinning; deductive analytic procedures | ||
While 61 articles are listed in this table, 5 studies were presented in multiple publications (e.g., dissertation and peer-reviewed article, full report and brief report); thus, these were considered duplicate documents