Collection of Information for Local Evaluations as part of the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP): Promising Youth Programs (PYP) (PREP PYP Part 2 – Local Eval templates)

PREIS Impact Report Tables Template

The Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This collection of information is voluntary and will be used to document the results of your evaluation. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 25 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and reviewing the collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB number and expiration date for this collection are OMB #: 0970-0531, Exp: XX/XX/XXXX. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Jean Knab; [email protected].

Table III.1. Outcome measures used for primary impact analyses research questions. This template includes an example in italics, as a SAMPLE for you to consider for your own report)

Behavioral outcome measure name	Source item(s)	Constructed measure	Timing of measure relative to program
Ever had sexual intercourse	Have you ever had sexual intercourse?	Dichotomous variable coded as 1 if answered yes, zero if no, and missing otherwise.	6 months after program ends

Table III.2. Outcome measures used for secondary impact analyses research questions

Outcome measure name	Source item(s)	Constructed measure	Timing of measure relative to program
Ever had sexual intercourse	Have you ever had sexual intercourse?	Dichotomous variable coded as 1 if answered yes, zero if no, and missing otherwise.	12 months after program ends

Table III.3a. Cluster and youth sample sizes by intervention status (Only use for studies with cluster-level assignment; if your design uses individual-level assignment, use Table III.3b)

Number of:	Time period	Total sample size	Intervention sample size	Comparison sample size	Total response rate	Intervention response rate	Comparison response rate
Clusters
Clusters: At beginning of study		1c =(1a +1b)	1a	1b	N/A	NA	N/A
Clusters: At least one youth completed baseline survey	Baseline	2c =(2a + 2b)	2a	2b	=2c/1c	=2a/1a	=2b/1b
Clusters: At least one youth completed follow-up	Immediately post-programming	3c = (3a + 3b)	3a	3b	=3c/1c	=3a/1a	=3b/1b
Clusters: At least one youth completed follow-up	6-months post-programming	4c =(4a + 4b)	4a	4b	=4c/1c	=4a/1a	=4b/1b
Clusters: At least one youth completed follow-up	12-months post-programming	5c = (5a + 5b)	5a	5b	=5c/1c	=5a/1a	=5b/1b
Youth
Youth in non-attriting clustersa
Youth: At time that clusters were assigned to condition		6c (=6a + 6b)	6a	6b	N/A	NA	N/A
Youth: Who consentedb		7c = (7a + 7b)	7a	7b	=7c/6c	=7a/6a	=7b/6b
Youth: Completed a baseline survey	Baseline	8c = (8a + 8b)	8a	8b	=8c/6c	=8a/6a	=8b/6b
Youth: Completed a follow-up survey	Immediately post-programming	9c = (9a + 9b)	9a	9b	=9c/6c	=9a/6a	=9b/6b
Youth: Included in the impact analysis sample at follow-up (accounts for item non-response)c	Immediately post-programming	10c = (10a + 10b)	10a	10b	=10c/6c	=10a/6a	=10b/6b
Youth: Completed a follow-up survey	6-months post-programming	11c = (11a + 11b)	11a	11b	=11c/6c	=11a/6a	=11b/6b
Youth: Included in the impact analysis sample at follow-up (accounts for item non-response)b	6-months post-programming	12c = (12a + 12b)	12a	12b	=12/6c	=12a/6a	=12b/6b

^a For all rows in this section, do not include youth from clusters that dropped (attrited) over the course of the study. For example, if you randomly assigned 10 clusters (5 to each condition), and one intervention group cluster (e.g. school) dropped from the study, you would only include youth in this section from the 9 clusters that did not drop from the study. Because the cluster-level response rate in the above rows already captures that dropped cluster, you do not need to count youth from the lost clusters in your youth-level response rates.

^b If consent occurred before assignment, delete this row. Add a note at the bottom of the table indicating that consent occurred before random assignment.

^c See guidance in section III.E for defining your analytic sample(s).

Table III.3b. Youth sample sizes by intervention status (Only use for studies with individual-level assignment; if your design uses cluster-level assignment, use Table III.3a instead)

Number of youth	Time Period	Total sample size	Intervention sample size	Comparison sample size	Total response rate	Intervention response rate	Comparison response rate
Assigned to condition		1c = (1a + 1b)	1a	1b	N/A	NA	N/A
Completed a baseline survey		2c = (2a + 2b)	2a	2b	=2c/1c	=2a/1a	=2b/1b
Completed a follow-up survey	Immediately post-programming	3c = (3a + 3b)	3a	3b	=3c/1c	=3a/1a	=3b/1b
Included in the impact analysis sample at follow-up (accounts for item non-response)a	Immediately post-programming	4c =(4a + 4b)	4a	4b	=4c/1c	=4a/1a	=4b/1b
Completed a follow-up survey	6-months post-programming	5c = (5a + 5b)	5a	5b	=5c/1c	=5a/1a	=5b/1b
Included in the impact analysis sample at follow-up (accounts for item non-response)a	6-months post-programming	6c = (6a + 6b)	6a	6b	=6c/1c	=6a/1a	=6b/1b

^a See guidance in section III.E for defining your analytic sample(s).

Table III.4. Summary statistics of key baseline measures for youth completing [Survey follow-up period]

Baseline measure	Intervention proportion or mean (standard deviation)	Comparison proportion or mean (standard deviation)	Intervention versus comparison difference	Intervention versus comparison p-value of difference
Age or grade level
Gender (female)
Race/ethnicity
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Asian
Behavioral outcome measure 1
Behavioral outcome measure 2
Non-behavioral outcome measure 1
Non-behavioral outcome measure 2
Sample size

Table V.1. Targets and findings for each measure used to answer implementation evaluation research questions (NOTE: example data included in italics. Please remove before completing the table)

Implementation element	Research question	Measure	Target	Results
Fidelity	Were all intended program components offered and for the expected duration?	Total number of sessions delivered Average session duration, calculated as the average of the recorded session lengths (in minutes)	95 percent of groups to receive all 12 sessions Average session duration will be at least 40 minutes	75 percent of groups received all 12 sessions Average duration of session was 35 minutes
Fidelity	What content did the youth receive?	Total number of topics covered, calculated as the average of the total number of topics checked by each program facilitator in the daily fidelity tracking log or protocol	95 percent of groups to receive 90 percent of the topics	65 percent of groups received 90 percent of the topics; 45 percent of groups received 100 percent of the topics
Fidelity	Who delivered services to youth?	Number and type of staff delivering services to study participants, such as the number of session facilitators Percentage of staff who receive minimum training, calculated as the number of staff who received at least 20 hours of training divided by the total number of staff who delivered the program	Three full-time health educators will deliver programming All health educators to receive at least 20 hours of training each year	A total of five staff were employed during evaluation to fill three full-time health educator positions 4 of 5 educators received at least 20 hours of training each year (average = 24.5 hours)
Fidelity	What were the unplanned adaptations to key program components?	List of unplanned adaptations, such as a change in setting, sessions added or deleted, and components cut	n/a	45 percent of educators skipped at least one component in Lessons 3 and 5
Dosage	How often did youth participate in the program on average?	Average number (or percentage) of sessions youth attended Percentage of the sample attending the required or recommended proportion of sessions Percentage of the sample that did not attend sessions at all	n/a 75 percent of youth to attend 75 percent of the program sessions Less than 5 percent of the sample gets none of the program	Youth attended 8 sessions on average 60 percent of youth attended 75 percent of the program sessions 10 percent of the sample received none of the program
Quality	What was the quality of staff–participant interactions?	Percentage of observed sessions with high quality interactions, calculated as the percentage of observed interactions that study staff scored as “high quality”	90 percent of observed sessions to be implemented with high quality (rated as a 3.5 out of 4 on the quality scale)	87 percent of observed sessions implemented with high quality (rated as a 3.5 out of 4 on the quality scale)
Engagement	How engaged were youth in the program?	Percentage of observed sessions with moderate participant engagement, calculated as the percentage of sessions in which study staff scored participants’ engagement as “moderately engaged” or higher	90 percent of observed sessions to be implemented with moderate to high engagement	85 percent of observed sessions implemented with moderate to high engagement
Context	What other pregnancy prevention programming was available to study participants?	Percentage of the sample receiving pregnancy prevention programming from other providers, constructed from immediate post-survey data on experiences outside of the current program	Less than 20 percent of youth to receive formal content outside of the program	35 percent of youth (50 percent in control group and 15 percent in treatment group) received other pregnancy prevention programming
Context	What external events affected implementation?	Percentage and total number of sessions not delivered due to event in the community, if any	n/a	Hurricane in community closed some programming sites for a week. Sessions were made up for 60 percent of youth in those sites.

Table V.2. Post-intervention estimated effects using data from [Survey follow-up time period] to address the primary research questions

Outcome measure	Intervention proportion or mean (standard deviation)	Comparison proportion or mean (standard deviation)	Intervention compared to comparison difference (p-value of difference)
Behavioral Outcome 1
Behavioral Outcome 2
Behavioral Outcome 3
Behavioral Outcome 4
Sample Size

Source: [Name for the Data Collection, Date. For instance, follow-up surveys administered 12 to 14 months after the program.]

Notes: [Anything to note about the analysis. See Table III.1 for a more detailed description of each measure and Chapter III for a description of the impact estimation methods.]

Table V.3. Post-intervention estimated effects using data from [Survey follow-up time period] to address the secondary research questions

Outcome measure	Intervention proportion or mean (standard deviation)	Comparison proportion or mean (standard deviation)	Intervention compared with comparison difference (p-value of difference)
Outcome 1
Outcome 2
Outcome 3
Outcome 4
Sample Size

Source: [Name for the Data Collection, Date. For instance, Follow-up surveys administered 6 to 8 months after the program.]

Notes: [Anything to note about the analysis. See Table III.2 for a more detailed description of each measure and Chapter III for a description of the impact estimation methods.]

Table B.1. Data used to address implementation research questions (NOTE: example data included in italics. Please remove before completing the table)

Implementation element	Research question	Measure	Data collection frequency/sampling	Data collectors
Fidelity	Were all intended program components offered and for the expected duration?	Total number of sessions delivered Average session duration, calculated as the average of the recorded session lengths (in minutes)	All sessions delivered are captured in MIS Session length sampled weekly	Program staff Program staff
Fidelity	What content did the youth receive?	Total number of topics covered, calculated as the average of the total number of topics checked by each program facilitator in the daily fidelity tracking log or protocol	Content from all sessions is captured in MIS	Program staff
Fidelity	Who delivered services to youth?	Number and type of staff delivering services to study participants, such as the number of session facilitators Percentage of staff who receive minimum training, calculated as the number of staff who received at least 20 hours of training divided by the total number of staff who delivered the program	Staff records Training attendance records from all training activities are captured in MIS	Program staff Program staff
Fidelity	What were the unplanned adaptations to key program components?	List of unplanned adaptations, such as a change in setting, sessions added or deleted, and components cut	As needed	Program staff, project director, evaluation staff
Dosage	How often did youth participate in the program on average?	Average number (or percentage) of sessions youth attended Percentage of the sample attending the required or recommended proportion of sessions Percentage of the sample that did not attend sessions at all	Student attendance at all sessions is captured in MIS Student attendance at all sessions is captured in MIS Student attendance at all sessions is captured in MIS	Program staff Program staff Program staff
Quality	What was the quality of staff–participant interactions?	Percentage of observed sessions with high quality interactions, calculated as the percentage of observed interactions that study staff scored as “high quality”	Convenience sample of 10% of classroom sessions were selected for observation	Evaluation staff
Engagement	How engaged were youth in the program?	Percentage of observed sessions with moderate participant engagement, calculated as the percentage of sessions in which study staff scored participants’ engagement as “moderately engaged” or higher	Random sample of 5% of classroom sessions were selected for observation	Evaluation staff
Context	What other pregnancy prevention programming was available to study participants?	Percentage of the sample receiving pregnancy prevention programming from other providers, constructed from immediate post-survey data on experiences outside of the current program	Post-program	Evaluation staff
Context	What external events affected implementation?	Percentage and total number of sessions not delivered due to event in the community, if any	As needed	Evaluation staff

Table S.1. Sensitivity of impact analyses using data from [Survey follow-up period] to address the primary research questions

Intervention compared with comparison	Benchmark approach difference	Benchmark approach p-value	Name of sensitivity approach 1 difference	Name of sensitivity approach 1 value	Name of sensitivity approach 2 difference	Name of sensitivity approach 2 p-value	Name of sensitivity approach 3 difference	Name of sensitivity approach 3 p-value	Name of sensitivity approach 4 difference	Name of sensitivity approach 4 p-value
Behavioral Outcome 1
Behavioral Outcome 2
Behavioral Outcome 3
Behavioral Outcome 4

Source: [Name for the Data Collection, Date. For instance, Follow-up surveys administered six to eight months after the program.]

Notes: [Anything to note about the analysis. See Table III.1 for a more detailed description of each measure and Chapter III for a description of the impact estimation methods.]

Table S.2. Sensitivity of impact analyses using data from [Survey follow-up period] to address the secondary research questions

Intervention compared with comparison	Benchmark approach difference	Benchmark approach p-value	Name of sensitivity approach 1 difference	Name of sensitivity approach 1 p-value	Name of sensitivity approach 2 difference	Name of sensitivity approach 2 p-value	Name of sensitivity approach 3 difference	Name of sensitivity approach 3 p-value	Name of sensitivity approach 4 difference	Name of sensitivity approach 4 p-value
Behavioral Outcome 1
Behavioral Outcome 2
Non-behavioral Outcome 1
Non-behavioral Outcome 2

Source: [Name for the Data Collection, Date. For example, Follow-up surveys administered six to eight months after the program. ]

Notes: [Anything to note about the analysis. See Table III.2 for a more detailed description of each measure and Section III for a description of the impact estimation methods.]

3