An Expanded Conceptual Model of Participant Engagement for Prevention and Intervention Research

Introduction: The evaluation of participant engagement (e.g., Dumas et al., 2007; Nix et al., 2009; Teti et al., 2008) is important because it captures information about participants that may be related to skill uptake and learning beyond attendance/dosage. However, previous research has used interventionist-report of engagement, and only some aspects of participant engagement can be observed by interventionists (i.e., in-session behaviors). We will present a new conceptual model of participant engagement that incorporates a wider spectrum of modes of engagement and is applicable across intervention programs.

Conceptual Model: The conceptual model proposed is comprised of 12 dimensions of participant engagement; each corresponds with 1 of 9 intersections of the modes of engagement (affective, cognitive, behavioral) with the aspects of intervention programming (teachings, group, practice). The usual behavioral dimensions are included in this model. Cognitive preparation for practice, or thinking about how to use the skills learned from the program in one’s own life (cognitive-practice), is one proposed dimension. It may be informative in reflecting how successful a participant will be in incorporating and practicing new skills in a thoughtful, effective, permanent way. Each dimension will be similarly described and overtly related to curriculum uptake to convey a clear multidimensional description of active engagement.

Measurement: In an effort to test this conceptual model, parents who participated in two versions of the Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10-14 (SFP) were asked to complete web-based questionnaires: 12 dimensions of engagement were measured weekly, the night of implementation, and in-home practice of curriculum-specific skills was measured daily. Measurement items will be described as they map onto the 12 dimensions of engagement.  Finally, we will present a factor analysis of engagement data to examine its statistical fit with the conceptual model. EFA using principal components analysis with oblimin rotation on data to-date (N = 38, N_response = 89) suggests that there are 3 factors of engagement, explaining 58.13% of the total variance.

Conclusions: There are many aspects of participant engagement that are relevant to learning skills taught in an intervention program, only some of which are currently conceptualized and measured. This model of engagement and corresponding measurement contribute to research by introducing constructs that may improve our prediction of which participants are likely to show more improvement in outcomes and which participants may need support engaging in intervention. Further research will extend this model by exploring the statistical connections of new dimensions to improved outcomes.