Cited by 13Youth Development and Social SupportEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentSocial Skills and Education

Effects of the SPARK teen mentoring program for high school students

Open access
Green, Amy L., Ferrante, Stephen, Boaz, Timothy L., Kutash, Krista, Wheeldon-Reece, Brooke·2022·Journal of Child and Family Studies

Abstract

Abstract This study employed a randomized controlled trial with pre- and post-intervention measurement to investigate the impact of the Speaking to the Potential, Ability, and Resilience Inside Every Kid (SPARK) Teen Mentoring program on knowledge of the principles of mind, thought, and consciousness; communication, decision making, and problem-solving skills; emotional regulation; and resilience. The SPARK program is a resilience-focused social-emotional learning program designed to promote youth resilience, emotional well-being, and academic success. Study participants included 396 9th through 12th grade students from four high schools. Random assignment occurred at the classroom level and resulted in 12 classes ( n = 200 students) in the intervention condition and 12 classes ( n = 172 students) in the comparison condition. Students in the intervention condition received the SPARK intervention while students in the comparison condition continued with the regularly scheduled school curriculum. Results revealed that levels of knowledge of the principles of mind, thought, and consciousness; communication, decision making, and problem-solving skills; emotional regulation; and resilience increased for students who received the intervention and either decreased or remained unchanged for students who did not receive the intervention. Results from this study provide initial evidence for the efficacy of the SPARK program with high school age youth and demonstrate the positive effects of the program on the development of emotional and interpersonal capacity required for pro-social behavior and academic success. Considerations for future program development and evaluation efforts are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10826-022-02298-x

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The SBM program increased resiliency.

    “resiliency (Green et al., 2021, 2022)”

    From Outcome domains and assessment measures in school-based youth mentoring programs: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as Green et al., 2022

    The Resilience results report a statistically significant improvement for students receiving the SPARK intervention relative to the comparison group, and the Discussion describes an increase in their perceived resilience. The paper identifies the intervention as SPARK, however, not an “SBM program,” so it does not establish the claim for the program as named. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The SBM program helped students develop interpersonal communication, problem solving, and decision-making skills.

    “The program also helped students develop a variety of skills, such as interpersonal communication, problem solving, and decision-making (Meltzer et al., 2020; Green et al., 2021, 2022).”

    From Outcome domains and assessment measures in school-based youth mentoring programs: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as Green et al., 2022

    The Results section on communication, problem-solving, and decision-making skills reports significant increases in self-reported skills for the intervention group relative to the comparison group. The Discussion identifies that intervention as SPARK, not SBM; this source therefore supports the skills finding for SPARK but not its attribution to SBM. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Mincemoyer, C. C., & Perkins, D. F. (2005). Measuring the impact of youth development programs: A national on-line youth life skills evaluation system. The Forum for Family and Consumer Issues, 10(2), 1-9.
  2. Prince-Embury, S. (2007). Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents: A profile of personal strengths. San Antonio, TX, Pearson.

Cited by

Authors
Green, A. L., Ferrante, S., Boaz, T. L., Kutash, K., & Wheeldon-Reece, B.
Affiliations
University of South Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Green, Amy L.
Venue
Journal of Child and Family Studies
Published
2022-04-22
Volume
31
Issue
7
Pages
1982-1993
ISSN
  • 1062-1024 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2843
OpenAlex
W4224211523
Cited by
13
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Child and Family Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Youth Development and Social Support
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › Social Skills and Education
Keywords
social-emotional learning, youth resilience, emotion regulation, high school students, communication skills, decision-making, problem-solving skills, prosocial behavior, academic performance, program efficacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review