|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
Following our theory of change, we measure our secondary outcomes at the parent-, adolescent-, and family-level. We consider these more ‘distal’ outcomes from the intervention but connected to the primary outcomes “downstream”. In other words, we expect that any change that might occur in the secondary outcomes stems from changes in the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes will also be measured using established scales or adaptations of items from other large-scale studies following recent guidelines (Macours et al., 2023).
For adolescents, we will measure: (i) externalising and internalising symptoms with the Youth Externalizing Problems Screener (Renshaw & Cook, 2018) and Kessler-10 Psychological Distress (Kessler et al., 2003), respectively, and well-being with Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (Lamers et al., 2011); (ii) risky behaviour (Young Lives; Seager & De Wet, 2003); (iii) school enrolment and attainment.
For parents, we will measure: (i) Brief Parental Self-efficacy Scale (Woolgar et al., 2023), and (ii) Kessler-10 Psychological Distress (Kessler et al., 2003).
For the family-level, we will assess effects on multiple dimensions of family functioning, as reported by both parents and children through the McMaster Family Assessment Device (Epstein et al., 1983).
Finally, we also explore potential mechanisms underlying program effectiveness: (i) parental and child knowledge of stress management techniques and disciplinary techniques (measured among parents only); (ii) implementation data (for treatment households, both self-reported and based on intervention attendance, SMS delivery rates, monitoring calls); (iii) spousal agreement; (iv) beliefs, preference and costs for child outcomes and time spent with child (as measured by a series of pre-registered lab-in-the-field experiments, see AEA xxxx); time use; and risk/time preferences.
If the adolescent has a young sibling, we will also explore spillover parenting effects on the younger sibling via parent-reported items from the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (Essau et al., 2006).
|
After
Following our theory of change, we measure our secondary outcomes at the parent-, adolescent-, and family-level. We consider these more ‘distal’ outcomes from the intervention but connected to the primary outcomes “downstream”. In other words, we expect that any change that might occur in the secondary outcomes stems from changes in the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes will also be measured using established scales or adaptations of items from other large-scale studies following recent guidelines (Macours et al., 2023).
For adolescents, we will measure: (i) externalising and internalising symptoms with the Youth Externalizing Problems Screener (Renshaw & Cook, 2018) and Kessler-10 Psychological Distress (Kessler et al., 2003), respectively, and well-being with Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (Lamers et al., 2011); (ii) risky behaviour (Young Lives; Seager & De Wet, 2003); (iii) school enrolment and attainment.
For parents, we will measure: (i) Brief Parental Self-efficacy Scale (Woolgar et al., 2023), and (ii) Kessler-10 Psychological Distress (Kessler et al., 2003).
For the family-level, we will assess effects on multiple dimensions of family functioning, as reported by both parents and children through the McMaster Family Assessment Device (Epstein et al., 1983).
Finally, we also explore potential mechanisms underlying program effectiveness: (i) parental and child knowledge of stress management techniques and disciplinary techniques (measured among parents only); (ii) implementation data (for treatment households, both self-reported and based on intervention attendance, SMS delivery rates, monitoring calls); (iii) spousal agreement; (iv) beliefs, preference and costs for child outcomes and time spent with child (as measured by a series of pre-registered lab-in-the-field experiments, see AEARCTR-0015304); time use; and risk/time preferences.
If the adolescent has a young sibling, we will also explore spillover parenting effects on the younger sibling via parent-reported items from the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (Essau et al., 2006).
|