TY - JOUR
AU1 - Ross, James G.
AU2 - Luepker, Russell V.
AU3 - Nelson, Gary D.
AU4 - Saavedra, Pedro
AU5 - Hubbard, Betty M.
AB -  split evenly between no-shows and those not invited to training. No baseline measures on teachers could be obtained because no teachers displayed the behavior under study (implementing THTM) before being introduced to the curriculum. The design was a posttest-only control group d e ~ i g n , which may be represented ~ schematically as: --_---____--_ 0, 0, 0 , In the diagram, R represents random assignment of experimental teachers to training/no training conditions. X represents training. 0, denotes measurement of curriculum implementation and student pretests/post, tests among trained teachers; 0 signifies measurement of curriculum implementation and student outcomes among control or unassigned teachers; and 0, denotes measurement of teacher implementation and student outcomes among “no shows.” Teachers in the last group are shown below the dotted line because they originally were assigned to be trained. For this reason, the design may also be described as a “broken experiment.”3 Since it was expected the experimental assignment would be broken, this factor was built into the design. Accurate prediction of no-show rates resulted in equal numbers of trained and untrained teachers. However, much higher attrition occurred among no-shows during the implementation period, with nearly 50% failing to use THTM 
TI - Teenage Health Teaching Modules: Impact of Teacher Training on Implementation and Student Outcomes
JF - Journal of School Health
DO - 10.1111/j.1746-1561.1991.tb07856.x
DA - 1991-01-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/wiley/teenage-health-teaching-modules-impact-of-teacher-training-on-hcfdV8SJvA
SP - 31
VL - 61
IS - 1
DP - DeepDyve
ER -