School-level constraints prevented two of nine sites from using the four-part written praise strategy¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on a source with no registered publication record (a web page, book or unpublished report). It is kept because 2 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Two of the nine sites could not use written praise: one cited misinterpretation concerns and one lacked superintendent approval. → Tingey 2023

Evidence¶

Tingey 2023¶

Tingey, L., R. Piatt, A. Hennigar, C. O'Callahan, S. Weaver, and H. Zaveri. (2023). The Sexual Risk Avoidance Education National Evaluation: Using Co-regulation in Youth Programs. OPRE Report 2023-281, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre

q2 · i? · design · r3

Section II.C reports that one site worried written praise could be misinterpreted when from a facilitator of the opposite sex, and another site's superintendent did not approve its use; some sites instead distributed notes in the last class.

"Constraints at the school level meant two of the nine sites were unable to use the written praise strategy."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Using co-regulation strategies helped facilitators and youth build warm, trusting relationships — related
• Most praise functions as a verbal reward, creating dependence on others' approval rather than self-generated criteria — related