Use meta-analytic benchmarks (.4-.6 overall; .3-.5 for ages 9-17; .5-.7 for 18+) to evaluate adventure therapy program effectiveness¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 1 study (1 quant-synthesis), q3 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

The authors recommend using their meta-analytic results as comparative benchmarks in adventure therapy program evaluation: a program's relative efficacy is determined by comparing its outcomes with the meta-analytic findings. Programs with "an overall effect size between approximately .4 and .6 are within the expected range", with values below indicating weaker and above stronger-than-expected effects. Benchmarks should be age-adjusted, and detailed comparisons made with specific outcome categories or outcomes with caution because sub-samples may be small and heterogeneous.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Program evaluation data must use the same standardised mean change effect size metric (pre-post within treatment group) to be comparable with the benchmarks

Constraints¶

• Benchmarks should be adjusted by age group; sub-sample comparisons may rest on small, heterogeneous samples

Target Learners¶

• at-risk youth
• clinical and adjudicated participants
• adult and family adventure therapy participants

Target Learning Goals¶

• psychosocial skill development
• reduction of behavioural problems
• psychological resilience

Claims¶

• Publication-bias checks indicate the pooled effect is unlikely to result from publication bias [+M]

Related Strategies¶

Examples¶

• Adventure therapy outcome meta-analytic dataset and coding manual — the coded corpus the benchmarks come from

Key Sources¶

• Daniel J. Bowen and James T. Neill. (2013). A Meta-Analysis of Adventure Therapy Outcomes and Moderators. The Open Psychology Journal, 2013, 6, 28-53. http://www.daniel-bowen.com.au/meta-analysis