Study Details
Floren, M., & Floren, K. (2023). Impact of the Choosing the Best program on sexual activity among students in communities committed to abstinence education: Additional analysis findings with adjustment for clustering. Practical Statistics LLC Final Report, submitted to Choosing the Best Publishing.
Lieberman, L., & Su, H. (2012). Impact of the Choosing the Best program in communities committed to abstinence education. SAGE Open, 1–12.
Lieberman, L., & Su, H. (2014). New revised analysis report of the impact of the Choosing the Best program on sexual activity among students in communities committed to abstinence education.
Floren, M., & Floren, K. (2022). Impact of the Choosing the Best program on sexual activity among students in communities committed to abstinence education: Additional analysis findings. Practical Statistics LLC Final Report, submitted to Choosing the Best Publishing.
Choosing the Best JOURNEY
Program Information
Evaluation Setting
Study Sample
Research Design
789
2
5 months after end of the intervention
Study Findings
The Choosing the Best JOURNEY program was evaluated using a cluster randomized control trial involving 9th grade students attending six schools in two school districts in Georgia. Four schools were randomly assigned to receive the eight sessions of the Choosing the Best JOURNEY program provided by Choosing the Best staff. Two schools were randomly assigned to serve as a control group that offered the typical abstinence-based classroom lessons. Surveys were administered immediately before the program (baseline), at the end of 9th grade (nine months after the baseline), and again at the start of 10th grade (14 months after the baseline).
The authors reported a favorable and statistically significant impact on rates of sexual initiation at end of 9th grade (effect size = -0.287) and a favorable but non-significant impact on rates of sexual initiation by the start of 10th grade (effect size = -0.202).
The study also examined impacts on pro-abstinence attitudes, pro-abstinence beliefs, self-efficacy, empowerment and hopefulness, commitment to abstinence, parent–child communication, intention to delay sex, intention to wait until marriage, and intention to return to abstinence. Findings for these outcomes were not considered because they fell outside the scope of this review. In addition, the study examined impacts on time since last sexual encounter; however, the findings for this outcome do not meet the review criteria for evidence of effectiveness because they are based on an endogenous subgroup.
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.