Operation Frontline: Assessment of Longer-term Curriculum Effectiveness, Evaluation Strategies, and Follow-up Methods

ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness of a traditional pretest versus a retrospective pretest, the stability of self-reported behavior changes at 3 or 6 months post-class series, and the most effective method for longer-term follow-up assessment of Operation Frontline’s Eating Right class series.DesignLongitudinal study; subjects surveyed at some combination of traditional pretest, retrospective pretest/posttest after the last class, and at 3 or 6 months.SettingCommunities in the metropolitan Denver area.ParticipantsOf the 53 participants, 90% were women, 70% were of Hispanic descent, 49% were between the ages of 20 and 29, and 64% had at least a twelfth-grade education or General Educational Development diploma.Main Outcome MeasuresContrast results from a traditional pretest with a retrospective pretest; assess temporal stability of self-reported behavior changes; and contrast response rates for multiple follow-up methods (mail, telephone, or reunion class).AnalysisItem and scale scores were compared across various time points using repeated-measures analysis of variance.ResultsNo significant differences were found for 6 of 7 variables between the traditional pretests and retrospective pretests. Most self-reported behavior changes were retained at 3 and 6 months post-class. Mail had the best response rate (62%) for this limited-resource population.Conclusions and ImplicationsThe maintenance of behavior changes at 3 or 6 months post-intervention supports the effectiveness of the Eating Right series. Mail follow-up achieved higher response rates than telephone. The lack of significant differences (except 1 variable) between the traditional pretest and the retrospective pretests does not support the retrospective pretest as being more accurate. However, the retrospective pretest may be more desirable for educators, as it eliminates the need to test participants twice.