Clinical trial NCT05555472: The Youth Initiated Mentoring Approach for Juvenile Delinquents
Official title: The Effectiveness of the Youth Initiated Mentoring Approach for Juvenile Delinquents
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: UNKNOWN
Phase: NA
Conditions: Juvenile Delinquency
Youth Initiated Mentoring (YIM) Approach
Keywords: Natural mentoring
Youth Initiated Mentoring
Delinquency
Juvenile
Adolescents
Prevention
Reoffending
Lead sponsor: University of Amsterdam
Sponsor class: OTHER
Collaborators: name: ZonMw: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development
name: YIM Foundation Netherlands (JIMwerkt.nl)
name: Halt (Halt.nl)
First posted: 2022-09-27
Enrollment: 300
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 12
Maximum age (years): 18
Standard ages: CHILD
ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Intervention model description: Youths will be non-randomly allocated to either a YIM trained Halt professional (N = 31), or a Halt professional not trained in the YIM approach (N = 31). These professionals will implement the Halt-plus-YIM-condition (N =150) or the CAU Halt-condition (N = 150), respectively. Random allocation of cases to Halt professionals was not possible because Halt's distribution office considers individuals' workload. Despite non-random allocation, conditions will be comparable in terms of (1) the professionals who deliver the intervention (i.e., same educational level and from the same region), and (2) case type and severity. Allocation of a youths' case to a professional, is independent of type of offense and its severity as well as the evaluation of number of risk factors present in youth. In addition, due to the equal number of professionals per region, similar distributions of youths per region are expected.
Primary purpose: PREVENTION

Brief summary: Natural or informal mentorship could potentially be considered effective in preventing or reducing delinquent behaviour. In the Youth Initiated Mentoring (YIM) approach, youths are supported by professionals in identifying and nominating a natural mentor within their own social network. The approach focuses on strengthening these naturally existing relationships with non-parental adults. Until now, little (quasi-)experimental research is conducted on the YIM approach. In the Netherlands, juvenile offenders between 12-18 years are referred to Halt, where they are required to follow a tailored intervention with the aim of preventing reoffending and increasing youths' future opportunities. Since 2019, the YIM approach is implemented as part of the Halt-intervention. The researchers will examine whether the YIM approach is an effective addition to the Halt-intervention. More specifically, whether it contributes to (1) strengthening youths' resilience, (2) decreasing or halting the need for formal support, and (3) decreasing or halting the development of juvenile delinquency.

This quasi-experimental trial aims to include 300 youths referred to Halt. Youths will be non-randomly allocated to either a YIM trained Halt professional (N = 31), or a Halt professional not trained in the YIM approach (N = 31). These professionals will implement the Halt-plus-YIM-condition (N =150) or the care-as-usual Halt-condition (N = 150), respectively. Random allocation of youth cases to Halt professionals was not possible because Halt's distribution office considers individuals' workload. Despite non-random allocation, conditions will be comparable in terms of (1) the professionals who deliver the intervention (i.e., same educational level and from the same region), and (2) case type and severity (i.e., allocation is independent of type of offense and its severity as well as the evaluation of number of risk factors present in youth). Researchers will perform a multi-informant measurement strategy. Youths are our primary informants, but parents of youths are also approached to participate. Youth and parent questionnaires related to several youth and family outcomes will be administered at baseline, 100 days after baseline (post-test), and nine months after baseline (follow-up). Researchers will also collect information registered by Halt professionals in Halt's registration system. Read detailed description for more information on outcomes.

Detailed description: Main aims and hypotheses

The main aim is to examine whether the YIM approach is an effective addition to the Halt-intervention. More specifically, researchers will examine whether the addition of a YIM to the Halt-intervention contributes to (1) strengthening adolescents' resilience (by stimulating protective factors), (2) decreasing or halting the need for formal support and (3) decreasing or halting the development of juvenile delinquency.

H1: It is expected that the YIM approach will strengthen youth resilience:

1. Improvement in social network quality as indexed by increased perceived social support, perceived mattering, and relatedness to others;
2. Improvement of social skills as indexed by increased social resourcefulness;
3. Increased feelings of autonomy and competence;
4. Decreased positive attitudes towards delinquency;
5. Stronger commitment to the social environment as indexed by increased school attachment, and structured free-time activities;
6. Stronger commitment to the social environment by increased school performance, school attachment and structured free-time activities.

H2: It is expected that YIM contributes to halting or decreasing the need for (formal) support.

H3: It is expected hat YIM contributes to halting or decreasing self-reported delinquency.

H4: It is expected that hypotheses three and four are mediated by an increase in resilience factors, such as perceived mattering, self-determination, and social control.

H5: It is expected that the effects of the YIM approach will work better for some than for others, therefore moderators such as demographic factors, psychosocial problems, mentor relationship quality, peer network quality, parental monitoring, and treatment characteristics (i.e., Halt-intervention characteristics and YIM approach characteristics) will be explored.

In addition, for parents the presence of a YIM could lead to an increase in family resilience, perceived social support and social resourcefulness, and a decrease in parental stress and need for (formal) support. It is also expected that they report less delinquent behaviour in their child.

Abovementioned youth and parent outcomes will be assessed as outcome measures, but exploratively also included in mediator analysis. Check measurements at "outcomes".

Methods/Design

Design

This quasi-experimental study was designed in co-creation with Halt professionals, policy officers and Halt management. Multiple design- and brainstorm sessions took place during the first phase of the study. Researchers presented several frameworks/ideas based on theory, which were then further developed, selected, combined, or adjusted together with Halt professionals. One part of the co-creation process was related to designing the participant flow of the study-to align this in an optimal way with the Halt working process. Several research steps (informed consent, pre-test, post-test, follow-up measurement, etc.) were printed on smaller post-its, which were then, in smaller groups, rearranged, organised, and pasted in an overview of the Halt working process. Ideas of the different groups were combined, strengths and pitfalls were assessed, and the most feasible design was selected. Another part of the co-creation process related to the selection of outcome measures. In a brainstorm session with Halt professionals, professionals selected outcome cards (i.e., change in which outcomes were expected after following the Halt-intervention and which after following the Halt-YIM intervention). In several adjacent brainstorm sessions about Halt's 'Theory of Change' with Halt policy officers and management, the outcome domains of Halt were further specified. Both the 'Theory of Change' discussion and the outcome cards discussion, then served as input for the researchers in the selection of outcome measures. These co-creation processes are in line with the Q-sort technique.

The study sample will consist of N = 300 Dutch adolescents (12-18 years) referred to Halt by a prosecutor, the police, a special investigating civil servant or a school attendance civil servant after committing an offense or crime. Common offenses are public inebriation, nuisance, and violation of the compulsory education law, common crimes are theft and vandalism. Adolescents will be non-randomly allocated to either a YIM trained Halt professional (N = 31) or a Halt professional not trained in the YIM approach (N = 31). These professionals will implement the Halt-plus-YIM-condition (N =150) or the care-as-usual (CAU) Halt-condition (N = 150), respectively. Despite non-random allocation to the Halt-plus-YIM and CAU, conditions will be comparable in terms of (1) the professionals who deliver the intervention and (2) case type and severity (see brief summary).

Researchers will perform a multi-informant measurement strategy. Youths are the primary informants, but parents of youths in both conditions are also approached to participate. Both youths and parents fill out questionnaires at baseline, 100 days after baseline (post-test) and nine months after baseline (follow-up). Participants with shortened cases (with less than three meetings) are excluded from post-test and follow-up measurements. Access is granted to relevant information about youth registered by Halt professionals in Halt's registration system.

Participant recruitment

Participants will be recruited by Halt professionals; data collection will be organised by the researchers. YIM-trained professionals will be responsible for recruiting participants for the Halt-YIM-condition (N = 150), non-trained Halt professionals will be responsible for recruiting participants for the CAU Halt-condition (N = 150). The procedure of recruiting participants will be the same in both conditions. The professionals will explicitly invite youths (and their parents) to participate in research with the aim to improve the quality of the Halt-intervention. This will be done (a) verbally during the preliminary conversation, and (b) by sending an invitation flyer with core information about the study immediately after the preliminary conversation. If youths and their parent(s) are interested in participating in the study, they can select a QR-code or link which refers them to the correct information video and an informed consent form corresponding to their age category (-15 years, 16+ years, parents). After giving active consent, youths, and parent(s) (from now on referred to as "participants") are directly referred to the first questionnaire. Participants will be instructed to fill out the first questionnaire before their initial meeting. The procedure for the second and third questionnaires will require no further action from the Halt professionals. All questionnaires will be administered in Dutch and will take approximately 30 minutes to complete per time point.

Data collection

Both recruitment and data collection will start in September 2022. Recruitment will stop after 15 months, because researchers strive to complete pre- and post-tests within 18 months. Follow-up measurements can take place up to 24 months after the start of the data collection. Youths and parents will be asked to fill out three questionnaires: before the intervention, 100 days after the start of the intervention, and 6 months after completion of the intervention. Hundred days is used as a point in time for the post-test because Halt strives to complete all interventions within 100 days.

Aside, from data collected via questionnaires, pseudonymised data from Halt's registration system will be securely transferred to the researchers. These data concerns relevant information regarding the youths, as registered by Halt professionals. For example, offense and referral information (type of crime, prior referrals to Halt, and referral organisation) and Halt-intervention characteristics (confession to the crime, parental consent to Halt, number of meetings between Halt professional and adolescent, and parental presence during meetings). In addition, relevant documents, like the Halt-SI and the YIM-document, are extracted from this system. The Halt-SI, which is administered by all Halt professionals, is a risk assessment tool that assesses various dynamic risk factors (e.g., alcohol use, drug use, and impulsivity) and psychosocial problems (e.g., mood and victim of neglect). In the YIM-document, YIM-trained Halt professionals register information regarding the YIM approach (e.g., the reaction of both youths and parents on the explanation of the YIM approach, which materials are used when motivating the YIM approach, the relationship of the youth with the chosen YIM, etc.). These data will be transferred every three months from Halt to the responsible researcher.

(Statistical) analysis plan

To test similarity between conditions, the two groups of Halt professionals (YIM-trained versus not trained in YIM) will be compared on several demographic factors (age, biological sex, gender identity, educational level, number of years of work experience, number of years working at Halt, and registration at the youth quality register), expectancy outcomes and personality. Second, youths will be compared on demographic factors, offense and referral information, prosocial behaviour and psychosocial problems, and dynamic risk factors. If differences are detected between conditions, propensity score matching (PSM) techniques will be used to match participants from the Halt-plus-YIM condition to the participants in the CAU Halt-condition based on the above-mentioned variables.

For the effect analysis on the different outcome variables, as well as for the moderator and mediator analyses, a series of multiple regression analyses (with baseline levels of the outcome variable as covariate, and condition as predictor variable) will be performed. To correct for the clustering of participants within Halt professionals, the regression analyses will be performed in a multilevel model. To control for chance capitalisation, researchers will implement a Benjamini Hochberg False Detection Rate (FDR) for correction on the p-values for the respective outcome tests.

Power analysis and sample size assessment

To assess the sample size per condition for the primary and secondary outcomes, researchers performed an a priori power analysis in G\*Power 3.1. To attain a power level of 0.80 with a significance level of α = .05, a total sample size of N = 100 is necessary to detect a small effect size (f = .10) in a linear multiple regression analysis. For moderator and mediator analysis, a larger sample size is required. Schoemann et al. state that "approximately N = 150 participants are required to ensure statistical power is at least 80% for detecting the hypothesized indirect effect". This would be an indication for a sample size of N = 75 participants per condition. To be able to perform PSM techniques to obtain two comparable groups, researchers will include a doubled ratio in both conditions (N =150 per condition).

A small effect size (f = .10) is expected based on prior knowledge. Prior meta-analyses that explored the effects of formal mentoring programs on delinquent behaviour and reoffending revealed small overall effects, both d = .21 (\~f =.10). Even though these effect sizes are small, these demonstrated effect sizes are comparable to other interventions aimed at decreasing delinquent behaviour. It is worthwhile to note that small to medium effect sizes were demonstrated for natural mentoring programs, such as the YIM approach, on positive youth outcomes (g = 0.30). These effects were larger as compared to formal mentoring programs (g = 0.21) and simply the presence of a natural mentor (g = 0.22).

Plan for missing data

Researchers will try to minimise the occurrence of missing data. First, the responsibility of inviting participants for the post-test and follow-up test will lie with the researchers. This will be independent from the intervention adolescents receive at Halt. Thus, even if participants discontinue their intervention at Halt, they will still be approach by the researchers for the post-test and follow-up measurements. Second, the researchers designed the study in way that it relates as much as possible to the participating youth. They are asked how they prefer to be approached and the questionnaires can be easily accessed via their smartphones. This also applies to participating parents.

Missing data is quite unavoidable. Researchers will therefore follow the Intention-to-Treat (ITT) principle for handling missing data on post-test and follow-up measurements. This means that researchers will analyse all missing data of participants according to their assigned condition, regardless of whether the intervention was received or completed. Missing data points will be estimated by performing Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) methods. Researchers will take the percentage of missing data in consideration, and patterns of missing data (e.g., missing completely at random).

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* (First) offenders between 12 and 18 years
* Referred to Halt by the police, prosecutor, special investigating officer, or a school attendance officer after committing an offense or crime
* Three or more meetings with the Halt professional

Exclusion Criteria:

* In both conditions "shortened cases" (i.e., cases with less than 3 meeting) will be excluded. In both conditions, Halt professionals are instructed to follow their regular working process. In the experimental condition, however, YIM trained professionals will be instructed to motivate and explain the YIM for cases with 3 or more meetings. Because motivation and explanation of the YIM approach are usually performed during a follow-up meeting, it will not be possible to motivate and deploy the YIM approach in shortened cases. Therefore, in both conditions, these cases will be excluded from the study.

Primary outcomes:
measure: Perceived Social Support
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Social Resourcefulness
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Need for (formal) support
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Need for (formal) support
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Self-reported delinquency
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Self-reported delinquency
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
Other outcomes:
measure: Perceived Social Support
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Perceived Mattering
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Perceived Mattering
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Relatedness to Others
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Relatedness to Others
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Peer Network Quality
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Peer Network Quality
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Social Resourcefulness
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Mentor Relationship Quality: Relationship processes
timeFrame: Measured at 100 days
measure: Mentor Relationship Quality: Relationship processes
timeFrame: Measured at 9 months
measure: Mentor Relationship Quality: Strength of Relationship
timeFrame: Measured at 100 days
measure: Mentor Relationship Quality: Strength of Relationship
timeFrame: Change from 100 days at 9 months
measure: Competence
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Competence
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Autonomy
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Autonomy
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Attitudes towards Delinquency
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Attitudes towards Delinquency
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Parental Monitoring
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Parental Monitoring
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Attachment to school
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Attachment to school
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Attachment to work
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Attachment to work
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Structured free-time activities
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Structured free-time activities
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Psychosocial Problems
timeFrame: Baseline
measure: Prosocial Behaviour
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Prosocial Behaviour
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Family Resilience
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Family Resilience
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Perceived Social Support (Parent(s))
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Perceived Social Support (Parent(s))
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Social Resourcefulness (Parent(s))
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Social Resourcefulness (Parent(s))
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Parental Stress
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Parental Stress
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Parental Monitoring (Parent(s))
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Parental Monitoring (Parent(s))
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Parent-YIM relationship: Relationship Processes
timeFrame: Measured at 100 days
measure: Parent-YIM relationship: Relationship Processes
timeFrame: Change from 100 days measurement at 9 months
measure: Parent-YIM relationship: Strength of Relationship
timeFrame: Measured at 100 days
measure: Parent-YIM relationship: Strength of Relationship
timeFrame: Change from 100 days at 9 months
measure: Need for (formal) support (Parent(s))
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Need for (formal) support (Parent(s))
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
measure: Youth Delinquent Behaviour
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 100 days (post-test)
measure: Youth Delinquent Behaviour
timeFrame: Change from baseline at 9 months (follow-up)
Locations:
city: Utrecht
country: Netherlands
facility: Halt
Study officials:
affiliation: University of Amsterdam
name: Levi Van Dam, Dr.
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
affiliation: University of Amsterdam
name: Geertjan J Overbeek, Prof. Dr.
role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
References:
citation: Agresti A, Franklin, C. Statistics: The art and science of learning from data. Pearson Education UK; 2013.
citation: Benjamini Y, Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1995;57(1):289-300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
citation: Bennett DA. How can I deal with missing data in my study? Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001 Oct;25(5):464-9.
citation: Berry J, Jones W. The parental stress scale: Initial psychometric evidence. JSPR. 1995 Aug;12(3):463-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407595123009
citation: Bowers EP, Johnson SK, Warren DJA, Tirrel, JM, Lerner JV. Youth-adult relationships and positive youth development. In: Bowers E, Geldhof GJ, editors. Promoting positive youth development. Berlin: Springer; 2015. p. 97-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17166-1_6
citation: Brown, SR. Political subjectivity: Application of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University; 1980.
citation: Brugman D, Nas CN, Van der Velden F, Barriga AQ, Gibbs JC, Bud Potter G, Liau AK. Hoe Ik Denk Vragenlijst (HID): Handleiding (Nederlandse versie). Amsterdam: Boom test uitgevers; 2011.
citation: Caliendo M, Kopeinig S. Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity scoring matching. J Econ Surv. 2008 Jan;22(1):31-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x
citation: Deci EL, Ryan, RM. The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychol Inq. 2000 Nov;11:227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
citation: Detry MA, Lewis RJ. The intention-to-treat principle: how to assess the true effect of choosing a medical treatment. JAMA. 2014 Jul 2;312(1):85-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.7523. No abstract available.
citation: DuBois DL, Holloway BE, Valentine JC, Cooper H. Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: a meta-analytic review. Am J Community Psychol. 2002 Apr;30(2):157-97. doi: 10.1023/A:1014628810714.
citation: Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):1149-60. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
citation: Ferwerda H, Van Leiden I, Arts N, Hauber A. Halt: Het alternatief? De effecten van Halt beschreven. Advies- en Onderzoeksgroep Beke; Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers [WODC 'Onderzoek en beleid', nr. 244]; 2006. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262720839_Halt_Het_Alternatief_De_effecten_van_Halt_beschreven
citation: Girelli L, Cavicchiolo E, Lucidi F, Cozzolino M, Alivernini F, Manganelli S. Psychometric properties and validity of a brief scale measuring Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction in Adolescents. J Educ Cult Psychol Stud. 2019;20:215-229. https://doi.org/10.7358/ecps-2019-020-gire
citation: Greeson JK, Usher L, Grinstein-Weiss M. One Adult Who Is Crazy about You: Can Natural Mentoring Relationships Increase Assets among Young Adults With and Without Foster Care Experience? Child Youth Serv Rev. 2010 Apr 1;32(4):565-577. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.12.003.
citation: Grollnick WS, Deci EL, Ryan RM. Internalization within the family: The self-determination theory perspective. In: Grusec JE, Kuczynski L, editors. Parenting and children's internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 1997. p. 135-161. Retrieved from https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/1997_GrolnickDeciRyan.pdf
citation: Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Fields Methods. 2006 Febr;18(1):59-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
citation: Hawkins S, Karcher MJ, Stewart K, DuBois DL. Mentoring for preventing and reducing delinquent behavior among youth. NMRC Research Review [A Program of Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention]. 2020:1-47. Retrieved from https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Mentoring_for_Preventing_and_Reducing_Delinquent_Behavior_Among_Youth_Research_Review.pdf
citation: Hendrickson Lohmeier J, Lee S. A school connectedness scale for use with adolescents. Educational Research and Evaluation. 2011 Apr;12(2):85-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2011.597108
citation: Jolliffe D, Farrington DP. A rapid evidence assessment of the impact of mentoring on re-offending: A summary [Home Office: Online Report]; 2007 Jul:1-13. Retrieved from https://www.youthmentoring.org.nz/content/docs/Home_Office_Impact_of_mentoring.pdf
citation: Kerr M, Stattin H. What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Dev Psychol. 2000 May;36(3):366-80.
citation: Marcus, FM. Mattering: Its measurement and theoretical significance for social psychology Cincinnati, OH; 1991.
citation: Raposa EB, Rhodes J, Stams GJJM, Card N, Burton S, Schwartz S, Sykes LAY, Kanchewa S, Kupersmidt J, Hussain S. The Effects of Youth Mentoring Programs: A Meta-analysis of Outcome Studies. J Youth Adolesc. 2019 Mar;48(3):423-443. doi: 10.1007/s10964-019-00982-8. Epub 2019 Jan 19.
citation: Schoemann AM, Boulton AJ, Short SD. Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2019 Jun;8(4):379-386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617715068
citation: Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclusions and the lost and wayward. Lancet. 2002 Mar 2;359(9308):781-5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07882-0.
citation: Schwartz SE, Rhodes JE, Spencer R, Grossman JB. Youth initiated mentoring: investigating a new approach to working with vulnerable adolescents. Am J Community Psychol. 2013 Sep;52(1-2):155-69. doi: 10.1007/s10464-013-9585-3.
citation: Schwarzer R, Schulz U. Berlin Social Support Scales (BSSS). Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Science; 2000. Retrieved from http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/bsss.htm
citation: Segers EW, van den Hoogen A, van Eerden IC, Hafsteinsdottir T, Ketelaar M. Perspectives of parents and nurses on the content validity of the Family Empowerment Scale for parents of children with a chronic condition: A mixed-methods study. Child Care Health Dev. 2019 Jan;45(1):111-120. doi: 10.1111/cch.12629.
citation: Tolan PH, Henry DB, Schoeny MS, Lovegrove P, Nichols E. Mentoring Programs to Affect Delinquency and Associated Outcomes of Youth At-Risk: A Comprehensive Meta-Analytic Review. J Exp Criminol. 2014 Jun 1;10(2):179-206. doi: 10.1007/s11292-013-9181-4.
citation: van Dam L, Blom D, Kara E, Assink M, Stams GJ, Schwartz S, Rhodes J. Youth Initiated Mentoring: A Meta-analytic Study of a Hybrid Approach to Youth Mentoring. J Youth Adolesc. 2021 Feb;50(2):219-230. doi: 10.1007/s10964-020-01336-5. Epub 2020 Oct 29.
citation: Van Dam L, Schwartz S. Cultivation of natural mentors to strengthen resilience in youth: A program theory of Youth Initiated Mentoring (YIM). JSI. 2020 Feb;29(1):3-20. https://doi.org/10.18352/jsi.623
citation: Van Dam L, Smit D, Wildschut B, Branje SJT, Rhodes JE, Assink M, Stams GJJM. Does Natural Mentoring Matter? A Multilevel Meta-analysis on the Association Between Natural Mentoring and Youth Outcomes. Am J Community Psychol. 2018 Sep;62(1-2):203-220. doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12248. Epub 2018 Apr 25.
citation: Van Dam L, Verhulst S. De JIM-aanpak: Het alternatief voor uithuisplaatsing van jongeren. Amsterdam: Boom Uitgevers; 2018.
citation: Van der Laan AM, Blom M. WODC-monitor zelfgerapporteerde jeugdcriminaliteit - meting 2005 [Dutch Research and Documentation Centre]; 2006. Retrieved from https://repository.wodc.nl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12832/882/me2006-4-volledige-tekst_tcm28-67990.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
citation: Verhulst FC, van der Ende J, Koot HM. Handleiding voor de CBCL/4-18. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Afdeling Kinder- en jeugdpsychiatrie, Sophia Kinderziekenhuis/Academisch Ziekenhuis Rotterdam/Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam; 1997.
citation: Yeatts SD, Martin RH. What is missing from my missing data plan? Stroke. 2015 Jun;46(6):e130-2. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.007984. Epub 2015 May 7. No abstract available.
citation: Rhodes JE, Schwartz SEO, Willis MM, Wu MB. Validating a mentoring relationship quality scale: Does match strength predict match length? Youth Soc. 2017 May;49(4): 415-437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X14531604