School of Social Work, College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, 3550 Lindell Blvd., St. Louis, MO, 63103, USA,
J Youth Adolesc. 2015 Mar;44(3):616-36. doi: 10.1007/s10964-014-0226-4. Epub 2014 Nov 22.
The popularity, demand, and increased federal and private funding for after-school programs have resulted in a marked increase in after-school programs over the past two decades. After-school programs are used to prevent adverse outcomes, decrease risks, or improve functioning with at-risk youth in several areas, including academic achievement, crime and behavioral problems, socio-emotional functioning, and school engagement and attendance; however, the evidence of effects of after-school programs remains equivocal. This systematic review and meta-analysis, following Campbell Collaboration guidelines, examined the effects of after-school programs on externalizing behaviors and school attendance with at-risk students. A systematic search for published and unpublished literature resulted in the inclusion of 24 studies. A total of 64 effect sizes (16 for attendance outcomes; 49 for externalizing behavior outcomes) extracted from 31 reports were included in the meta-analysis using robust variance estimation to handle dependencies among effect sizes. Mean effects were small and non-significant for attendance and externalizing behaviors. A moderate to large amount of heterogeneity was present; however, no moderator variable tested explained the variance between studies. Significant methodological shortcomings were identified across the corpus of studies included in this review. Implications for practice, policy and research are discussed.
在过去的二十年中,由于对课后项目的普及、需求以及联邦和私人资金的增加,课后项目显著增加。课后项目被用于预防不良后果、降低风险或改善高危青年在几个领域的功能,包括学业成就、犯罪和行为问题、社会情感功能以及学校参与和出勤率;然而,课后项目的效果证据仍然存在争议。本系统评价和荟萃分析遵循 Campbell 合作组织的指导方针,考察了课后项目对有风险学生的外化行为和出勤率的影响。对已发表和未发表文献进行了系统搜索,纳入了 24 项研究。从 31 份报告中提取了 64 个效应量(16 个用于出勤率结果;49 个用于外化行为结果),使用稳健方差估计来处理效应量之间的相关性,纳入荟萃分析。出勤率和外化行为的平均效应较小且不显著。存在中度到高度的异质性;然而,没有一个测试的调节变量可以解释研究之间的差异。在本综述中纳入的研究中,发现了显著的方法学缺陷。讨论了对实践、政策和研究的影响。