A follow-up two-way ANOVA (period: pre- versus post-test × experimental condition: control versus intervention) for this measure revealed the difference at pre-treatment, although statistically significant, was substantially smaller in magnitude than the difference at post-treatment.
We paid special attention to determine the nature of the control conditions and control intervention, i.e., whether or not it was active or passive.
Participants who consent will be randomized on a 1 1 basis to one of two conditions: control versus volunteering intervention.
Schools were allocated into one of three intervention conditions: control condition; individual condition; collaborative learning condition.
The mean total safety knowledge score and the mean total safety knowledge score percent will be calculated for pretest intervention condition, pretest control condition, posttest intervention condition and posttest control condition participants.
Translated to SCR designs, the baseline phase becomes the control condition, the intervention phase becomes the treatment condition, and improvement is defined as non-overlapping data between phases.
Participants at each site will be randomised to either the intervention condition or the wait-list control condition (no intervention apart from the collection of outcome data).
CC, control condition; IC, intervention condition; IFNγ, interferon gamma; IL, interleukin; TNFα, tumor necrosis factor alpha. aSignificant between-group effect (P ≤0.05).
Using non-uniform random assignment and a 1 1 3 blocking ratio we assigned one municipality per block to be audited by the ASF, another by the EFSL, and the remaining three municipalities to the control condition (no intervention).
Studies were included if they featured a randomised controlled design in which the effects of a psychosocial intervention were compared to a control condition (no intervention, attention placebo, wait-list, treatment-as-usual [TAU]), another psychosocial intervention or a pharmacological intervention.
