What Motivates Participation and Dropout Among Low-Income Urban Families of Color in a Prevention Intervention?*

摘要: What Motivates Participation and Dropout Among Low-Income Urban Families of Color in a Prevention Intervention?* Low-income urban parents color enrolled parent training study were interviewed to understand what motivated their participation led 30% them subsequently drop out. Most because they wanted be better parents. dropped out time schedule constraints. Retention was higher when parents' motivations for matched program goals. Program location qualities the recruiter cited most often as important; financial compensation least important. Key Words: attrition, low-income families, minority, training, participation, prevention. Parent during early childhood has been identified potentially powerful intervention promoting positive parenting skills reducing risk factors associated with antisocial behavior children (Gross, Fogg, & Tucker, 1995; Kazdin, 1997; Webster-Stratton, 1998). However, studies are plagued by methodological flaws that affect prevention studies: low attendance rates high attrition (Coie et al., 1993; Given, Keilman, Collins, 1990; Motzer, Moseley, Lewis, Siddiqui, Flay, Phil, Hu, 1996). Poor particularly apparent research using families color. For example, effectiveness Effective Black Parenting inner city African-American Myers al. (1992) reported 13% at group meetings 33%. Study validity is further compromised fact retention tend systematically related those also poor outcomes including socioeconomic status, single parenthood, lower educational levels (Forehand, Middlebrook, Rogers, Steffe, 1983; Haggerty 2000; Spoth, Goldberg, Redmond, 1999; Weinberger, Tublin, Ford, Feldman, 1990). These biases drop-out make it difficult interpret families. Further, these determine whether successes among middle-- class European-American can generalized low-- income (Forehand Kotchick, To increase enrollment populations, researchers have typically implemented range costly incentives, such monetary rewards attending groups, completing assessments, gifts door prizes, free food childcare, transportation (Cipaldi Patterson, 1987; Conduct Problems Research Group, Dumka, Garza, Roosa Stoerzinger, Stoy 1995). not clear degree which incentives are, fact, important members target population (Moore, Saylor, Elksnin, Farah, Pope, participating Fast Track paid $15 every 2-hour attended (Orrell-Valente, Pinderhughes, Valente, Laird, Groups, 1999). Although high, groups averaged 56.3% sessions. In middleschool children, Irvine others (Irvine, Biglan, Smolkowski, Metzler, Ary, 1999) offered series payments varying participation. included $10 allowing come home, another 4 first 6 classes, last an additional total 10 12 classes. …