Study Details
Slater, H.M., and Mitschke, D.B. (2015). "Evaluation of the Crossroads Program in Arlington, TX: Findings from an Innovative Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program" Arlington, TX: University of Texas at Arlington.
Crossroads
Program Information
Evaluation Setting
Study Sample
Research Design
1174
3
12
Study Findings
The program was evaluated in a randomized controlled trial involving 1,174 adolescents classified as high risk for dropping out of high school. The adolescents were recruited to participate in the study from one alternative and six traditional high schools in the Arlington Independent School District in Texas. The intervention was implemented outside the regular school day (in the afternoon and during the weekend) in a community-based setting for three consecutive days. Study surveys were administered and three, six, and twelve months after the intervention ended.
Six months after the intervention, adolescents participating in the intervention were significantly less likely than those in the study control group to report having had vaginal intercourse without using a condom in the past three months (odds ratio = 0.38, confidence interval = 0.59 to 0.79). The study found no statistically significant program impacts on having anal or oral sexual intercourse without a condom at the six-month follow-up. For the follow-up conducted 3 months after the program ended, the study found no evidence of statistically significant program impacts on having vaginal, anal, and oral sexual intercourse without a condom.
The study also examined program impacts on having sexual activity without using a condom and on ever being pregnant 12 months after the program ended. However, the findings for the 12-month follow-up did not meet the review standards because they were based on a sample with high attrition.
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.
Language directly from the program model developer or authors.