Henderson Smith Lora, Aguilar Lisa N, Joshua Kate, Pandey Toshna, Sox Dana M, Hernandez Belinda E, Wang Yufu, Yang Kaylin, Bottiani Jessika H
University of Virginia, School of Education and Human Development, Charlottesville, VA, United States.
University of Minnesota, Department of Educational Psychology, United States.
J Sch Psychol. 2025 Feb;108:101402. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2024.101402. Epub 2024 Dec 3.
Implementing culturally appropriate school-based prevention programs with Indigenous students that leverage culture as a protective factor has the potential to revitalize and sustain cultural connections that have historically and systematically been destroyed in the United States. However, there is a dearth of literature synthesizing the effectiveness of school-based prevention programs that have been implemented with Indigenous students across contexts. As such, we conducted a mixed method systematic review to (a) evaluate school-based prevention programs with quantitative and/or qualitative data, (b) assess the use of Indigenous research methods, and (c) examine cultural and community validity. Studies were included if they were published between January 2010 and August 2022, reported quantitative and/or qualitative outcomes for a prevention program implemented in a K-12 school with Indigenous students, or examined an intervention that was designed for Indigenous students (even if there were non-Indigenous students in the study). We strategically included qualitative and mixed methods studies to ensure that cultural and community contexts were represented in this study and to contextualize quantitative findings. Our search resulted in the inclusion of 36 manuscripts describing 28 different interventions. There were 11 mixed methods, three qualitative, and 22 quantitative studies. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (Hong et al., 2018) and a randomized controlled trials appraisal tool drawn from the Journal Article Reporting Standards (Appelbaum et al., 2018). Building on the work from Kūkea Shultz and Englert (2021), cultural validity was assessed by conceptualizing cultural validity into the two distinct domains of purposeful engagement and intentional privileging. Intervention effectiveness was evaluated and separated into three criteria (i.e., positive, null, and mixed) to determine if effectiveness varied based on intervention or study design. Most of the studies reported positive outcomes and effectiveness did not vary based on study design (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods) or intervention design (i.e., culturally grounded, culturally adapted or mainstream/no cultural adaptations). We discuss implications of systematic review findings as well as the importance of using mixed methods to understand and contextualize intervention effectiveness when conducting research that relates to identity and culture.
为美国原住民学生实施符合文化背景的校本预防项目，利用文化作为保护因素，有可能重振并维持历史上和系统上已被破坏的文化联系。然而，缺乏对在不同背景下针对原住民学生实施的校本预防项目有效性进行综合的文献。因此，我们进行了一项混合方法的系统评价，以（a）用定量和/或定性数据评估校本预防项目，（b）评估原住民研究方法的使用情况，以及（c）检验文化和社区效度。如果研究发表于2010年1月至2022年8月之间，报告了在K-12学校针对原住民学生实施的预防项目的定量和/或定性结果，或研究了为原住民学生设计的干预措施（即使研究中有非原住民学生），则纳入该研究。我们策略性地纳入了定性和混合方法研究，以确保本研究中体现文化和社区背景，并将定量研究结果置于情境中。我们的检索结果纳入了36篇描述28种不同干预措施的手稿。其中有11项混合方法研究、3项定性研究和22项定量研究。使用混合方法评估工具（Hong等人，2018年）和从《期刊文章报告标准》中提取的随机对照试验评估工具（Appelbaum等人，2018年）评估质量。基于Kūkea Shultz和Englert（2021年）的工作，通过将文化效度概念化为有目的参与和有意优待这两个不同领域来评估文化效度。对干预效果进行评估并分为三个标准（即积极、无效和混合），以确定效果是否因干预或研究设计而异。大多数研究报告了积极结果，且效果不因研究设计（即定量、定性和混合方法）或干预设计（即基于文化、文化适应或主流/无文化适应）而有所不同。我们讨论了系统评价结果的影响，以及在进行与身份和文化相关的研究时使用混合方法来理解和情境化干预效果的重要性。
