•  

Intervention Summary

Back to Results Start New Search

Rock In Prevention, Rock PLUS

Rock In Prevention, Rock PLUS, is a 12-week classroom curriculum designed for grades 3-6 that uses music and the arts as interactive teaching tools to influence behaviors and attitudes related to the use of four targeted substances: alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and inhalants. The intervention is also designed to increase awareness of the risks of substance use; develop personal and social skills; encourage parental involvement; and foster a number of positive traits, such as academic achievement, health and wellness, media literacy, anger management, problem solving, and antibullying attitudes.

The theoretical basis of the intervention is rooted in the positive behavior supports approach to reducing negative behaviors and enhancing positive outcomes. The intervention aims to create a safe and supportive learning environment in which the desired behaviors and attitudes can be achieved. The core components are in-class lesson plans, usually one class period in length, which include visual, auditory, and kinesthetic elements, and a "song of the week" used at home to engage parents and the child. Songs produced for the program deliver key learning objectives in a form that is engaging and memorable. Skits and other interactive activities incorporate the same messages. The intervention can be implemented by teachers, guidance counselors, or alcohol and drug abuse prevention professionals who are required to view an orientation training video.

Descriptive Information

Areas of Interest Substance abuse prevention
Outcomes Review Date: December 2011
1: Inhalant use
2: Perception of harm from substance use
Outcome Categories Drugs
Tobacco
Ages 6-12 (Childhood)
Genders Male
Female
Races/Ethnicities American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
White
Race/ethnicity unspecified
Settings Home
School
Geographic Locations Urban
Rural and/or frontier
Implementation History Research on the intervention began in 2003 and was conducted by Iowa State University in multiple sites across Iowa. The intervention has reached an estimated 4,000 students to date and is currently being implemented in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Wisconsin.
NIH Funding/CER Studies Partially/fully funded by National Institutes of Health: No
Evaluated in comparative effectiveness research studies: No
Adaptations No population- or culture-specific adaptations of the intervention were identified by the developer.
Adverse Effects No adverse effects, concerns, or unintended consequences were identified by the developer.
IOM Prevention Categories Universal

Quality of Research
Review Date: December 2011

Documents Reviewed

The documents below were reviewed for Quality of Research. The research point of contact can provide information regarding the studies reviewed and the availability of additional materials, including those from more recent studies that may have been conducted.

Study 1

Shelley, M. (2011). Report to NREPP reviewers on the Quality of Research for Rock In Prevention PLUS.

Outcomes

Outcome 1: Inhalant use
Description of Measures Inhalant use was assessed with a single item from a questionnaire developed for the study. The question asked, "On how many occasions during the last 30 days (if any) have you sniffed glue, or breathed the contents of aerosol spray cans, or inhaled any other gases or sprays in order to get high?" Respondents answered using the following scale: 1 = 0 occasions, 2 = 1-2 occasions, 3 = 3-5 occasions, 4 = 6-9 occasions, 5 = 10-19 occasions, 6 = 20-39 occasions, and 7 = 40 or more occasions. Assessment was conducted at pretest, posttest (about 3 months after completion of the intervention), and follow-up (about 1 year after completion of the intervention).
Key Findings Two schools were randomly assigned to the intervention group, and two were randomly assigned to the no-treatment control group. From pre- to posttest, inhalant use decreased among intervention group students and increased among control group students (p = .047). At follow-up, no significant between-group differences in inhalant use were found.
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 2.8 (0.0-4.0 scale)
Outcome 2: Perception of harm from substance use
Description of Measures Perception of harm from substance use was assessed using 5 items from a questionnaire developed for the study. The questions asked how much people risk harming themselves (physically or in other ways) if they smoke one or more packs of cigarettes per day, try marijuana once or twice, smoke marijuana regularly, take one or two drinks nearly every day, and have five or more drinks once or twice a weekend. Respondents answered each item using the following scale: 1 = no risk, 2 = slight risk, 3 = moderate risk, and 4 = great risk. Responses were summed. Assessment was conducted at pretest, posttest (about 3 months after completion of the intervention), and follow-up (about 1 year after completion of the intervention).
Key Findings Two schools were randomly assigned to the intervention group, and two were randomly assigned to the no-treatment control group. From pre- to posttest, perception of harm from substance use increased among intervention group students and decreased among control group students (p < .001). At follow-up, no significant between-group differences in perception of harm from substance use were found.
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 2.9 (0.0-4.0 scale)

Study Populations

The following populations were identified in the studies reviewed for Quality of Research.

Study Age Gender Race/Ethnicity
Study 1 6-12 (Childhood) 49.4% Male
46.2% Female
75.7% White
17% Race/ethnicity unspecified
11.7% Hispanic or Latino
2.9% American Indian or Alaska Native
2.3% Asian
1.8% Black or African American
0.3% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

Quality of Research Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)

External reviewers independently evaluate the Quality of Research for an intervention's reported results using six criteria:

  1. Reliability of measures
  2. Validity of measures
  3. Intervention fidelity
  4. Missing data and attrition
  5. Potential confounding variables
  6. Appropriateness of analysis

For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Quality of Research.

Outcome Reliability
of Measures
Validity
of Measures
Fidelity Missing
Data/Attrition
Confounding
Variables
Data
Analysis
Overall
Rating
1: Inhalant use 2.6 3.1 2.9 2.0 3.0 3.5 2.8
2: Perception of harm from substance use 2.6 3.3 2.9 2.0 3.0 3.5 2.9

Study Strengths

Extensive efforts were undertaken to assess and document the reliability and validity of the instrument created to measure study outcomes. Both reliability and validity were adequate. Methods to maximize fidelity, including standardized materials and teacher training, were put in place at the classroom level. Measures of fidelity indicated that 100% of lessons were taught and more than 80% of participating students attended the lessons. The schools in the study were randomly selected to participate and randomly assigned to treatment condition, reducing potential bias in the study findings.

Study Weaknesses

No reliability or validity data from independent evaluations are available for the outcome instrument. While attrition was relatively low between the pre- and posttest assessments (about 12.5%), it rose to about 25% at the follow-up. Researchers did not report information about possible differences in important characteristics between those remaining in the study and those lost to follow-up. The rate of parental involvement, which averaged 30% across students in the intervention schools, also leaves open to question the effect of the home portion of the program.

Readiness for Dissemination
Review Date: December 2011

Materials Reviewed

The materials below were reviewed for Readiness for Dissemination. The implementation point of contact can provide information regarding implementation of the intervention and the availability of additional, updated, or new materials.

Mirr, R., & Salmon, S. (2004). Rock In Prevention grades 3-4: Instructor manual. Des Moines, IA: Rock In Prevention.

Mirr, R., & Salmon, S. (2004). Rock In Prevention grades 3-4: Student booklet. Des Moines, IA: Rock In Prevention.

Mirr, R., & Salmon, S. (2004). Rock In Prevention grades 4-5: Instructor manual. Des Moines, IA: Rock In Prevention.

Mirr, R., & Salmon, S. (2004). Rock In Prevention grades 4-5: Student booklet. Des Moines, IA: Rock In Prevention.

Mirr, R., & Salmon, S. (2004). Rock In Prevention grades 5-6: Instructor manual. Des Moines, IA: Rock In Prevention.

Mirr, R., & Salmon, S. (2004). Rock In Prevention grades 5-6: Student booklet. Des Moines, IA: Rock In Prevention.

Program Web site, http://www.rockinprevention.org/

Rock In Prevention. (n.d.). Rock PLUS pre-program parent letter, evaluations, fidelity checklists.

Rock In Prevention Training Orientation Video

Readiness for Dissemination Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)

External reviewers independently evaluate the intervention's Readiness for Dissemination using three criteria:

  1. Availability of implementation materials
  2. Availability of training and support resources
  3. Availability of quality assurance procedures

For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Readiness for Dissemination.

Implementation
Materials
Training and Support
Resources
Quality Assurance
Procedures
Overall
Rating
3.8 3.5 3.5 3.6

Dissemination Strengths

The student booklets and instructor manuals are well organized, clearly written, and easy to use. These materials are also developmentally appropriate for the intended grade levels and can be implemented by teachers, guidance counselors, or alcohol and drug abuse prevention professionals. Training is available on video (on the Web and on DVD) as well as on site. The evaluation and quality assurance procedures are well developed and easy to follow. Third-party fidelity checklists for each grade level and multiple methods of program evaluation are provided.

Dissemination Weaknesses

The training video has poor image quality. Some forms and other quality assurance materials are not clearly tied to the implementation materials. No guidance is provided on how the evaluations should be used to improve program implementation.

Costs

The cost information below was provided by the developer. Although this cost information may have been updated by the developer since the time of review, it may not reflect the current costs or availability of items (including newly developed or discontinued items). The implementation point of contact can provide current information and discuss implementation requirements.

Item Description Cost Required by Developer
Starter kit for grades 3 and 4, 4 and 5, or 5 and 6 (includes 30 student booklets, 1 instructor manual, music CDs, and quality assurance materials) $515.22 each Yes, for each grade level to be implemented
Additional student booklets $498.60 per pack of 30 No
Pens for students $28.20 per pack of 30 No
Wristbands for students $45 per pack of 30 No
T-shirts for students $600 per pack of 40 in medium size and 20 in large size No
Training orientation video Free if accessed online or $25 for each DVD Yes
2-hour, on-site training for teachers, counselors, and prevention specialists $1,000 for up to 50 participants, plus travel expenses No
4-hour, on-site training for teachers, counselors, and prevention specialists $2,500 for 50 or more participants, plus travel expenses No
Ongoing technical support by phone or email Free No
Replications

No replications were identified by the developer.

Contact Information

To learn more about implementation, contact:
Patrick J. McManus, NCAC
(515) 255-0635
pat.mcmanus@rockinprevention.org

To learn more about research, contact:
Mack Shelley, Ph.D.
(515) 294-8346
mshelley@iastate.edu

Consider these Questions to Ask (PDF, 54KB) as you explore the possible use of this intervention.

Web Site(s):