Study Details

Citation

Reyna, V. F., Mills, B. A. (2014). Theoretically Motivated Interventions for Reducing Sexual Risk Taking in Adolescence: A Randomized Controlled Experiment Applying Fuzzy-Trace Theory. Journal Of Experimental Psychology. General, 143(4), 1627-1648.

Program or Component Study?
Program
Program or Component Name

Reducing the Risk

Show Evidence of Effectiveness
Yes
Study Rating and Explanation
Moderate —

Random assignment study that received a moderate rating because it reassigned sample members after random assignment; for the comparison of the RtR group versus the control group, findings show a positive, statistically significant impact for at least one behavioral outcome; the comparison of the RtR+ group versus the control group did not meet the review standards because the groups were different at baseline on age.

Program Information

Program Type
Sexual health education
Program Length
Fewer than 10 sessions

Evaluation Setting

Evaluation Setting
After school

Study Sample

Average Age Group
14 to 17
Majority Racial/Ethnic Group
White
Gender
Youth of any gender

Research Design

Assignment Method
Randomized controlled trial
Sample Size

734

Number of Follow-Ups

4

Length of Last Follow-Up

12

Year of Last Data Collection
2012 (Imputed to year of publication minus one year)

Study Findings

Result Number Partners
Indeterminate evidence
Result Sexual Activity
Potentially favorable evidence
Result Contraceptive
Indeterminate evidence
Reviewed Studies
Moderate-Quality Randomized Trial
Protocol Version
Version 4.0
Details

A more recent study examined the effectiveness of an adapted version of the program, called RtR+, that places greater emphasis on the bottom-line or "gist" message of the program. The study used a randomized controlled trial involving high-school-aged students across three states (Arizona, New York, and Texas). Study participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) a treatment group that received the standard version of the program, (2) a treatment group that received RtR+, the adapted version of the program, or (3) a control group that received an unrelated curriculum on communication skills. Surveys were administered immediately before the program (baseline), immediately after the program, and again three, six and 12 months after the program ended. For the standard version of the program, the study replicated the favorable impact on sexual initiation found in the earlier study by Zimmerman et al. (2008). At the time of the 12-month follow-up survey, adolescents in the control group were more likely than those in the standard RtR group to report having initiated sexual intercourse, and the reported odds ratio (odds = 4.76) is larger than the odds ratio reported in the earlier study by Zimmerman et al. (odds = 2.42, confidence interval = 1.54 to 3.80). The study found no statistically significant impacts of the standard version of the program on two other measures of sexual risk behavior: (1)

Effect Sizes
{"0": {"ProgramName":"Reducing the Risk","StudyID":"PPRER000002","ManuscriptID":"PPRER000002","sid":"182","Rating":"Moderate","OutcomeName":"Prophylactic risk index ","OutcomeDomain":"Contraceptive Use","OutcomeDichotomous":"No","SampleType":"Full sample","FUTimingMonths":"12","FUReference":"After program ended","MeanTreat":"0.76","MeanComp":"0.79","TpperES":"-0.084","StatSigRepEffect":"No","RepEffectFavorable":"Not significant","RepEffectMeet":"No"},"1": {"ProgramName":"Reducing the Risk","StudyID":"PPRER000002","ManuscriptID":"PPRER000002","sid":"182","Rating":"Moderate","OutcomeName":"Number of sexual partners","OutcomeDomain":"Number of Sexual Partners","OutcomeDichotomous":"No","SampleType":"Full sample","FUTimingMonths":"12","FUReference":"After program ended","MeanTreat":"2.21","MeanComp":"2.49","TpperES":"-0.086","StatSigRepEffect":"No","RepEffectFavorable":"Not significant","RepEffectMeet":"No"}}

NA = Not available. This means the authors did not report the information in the manuscripts associated with the studies we reviewed.

a This information was not available whenever authors did not report information for the treatment and comparison groups separately on outcome means, standard deviations, and/or sample sizes.

b Authors reported that the program effect (impact) estimate is statistically significant with a p-value of less than 0.05 based on a two-tailed test.

c For some outcomes, having less of that outcome is favorable. In those cases, an effect with a negative sign is favorable to the treatment group (that is, the treatment group had a more favorable outcome than the comparison group, on average).

d An effect shows credibly estimated, statistically significant evidence whenever it has a p-value of less than 0.05 based on a two-tailed test, includes the appropriate adjustment for clustering (if applicable), and it is not based on an endogenous subgroup.