[Retracted] Process Evaluation of a Positive Youth Development Program in Hong Kong Based on Different Cohorts

Table 1

Descriptive profile of participating schools from 2005 to 2009.

	S1			S2			S3
	2005/2006 (EIP)	2006/2007 (FIP)	2008/2009 (FIP)	2006/2007 (EIP)	2007/2008 (FIP)	2008/2009 (FIP)	2007/2008 (EIP)	2008/2009 (FIP)
Total schools that joined P.A.T.H.S.	52	207	197	49	196	198	48	167
(i) 10 h program	23	95	104	27	113	110	29	104
(ii) 20 h program	29	112	93	22	83	88	19	63
Total schools that joined this study	6	14	3	4	14	3	4	14
(i) 10 h program	1	5	0	0	5	0	0	5
(ii) 20 h program	5	9	3	4	9	3	4	9
Background characteristics of participating schools
Location (district)
Hong Kong and Islands	1	2	1	1	2	1	1	4
Kowloon	0	7	1	2	2	1	1	4
N.T.	5	5	1	1	10	1	2	6
Finance mode
Aided	6	11	3	3	10	3	4	13
Direct subsidy scheme	0	2	0	1	1	0	0	0
Government	0	1	0	0	3	0	0	1
Sex composition
Coed	6	11	3	4	13	3	4	11
Unisex	0	3	0	0	1	0	0	3
Religious background
Christian/Catholic	2	7	2	2	7	1	0	8
Buddhism/Taoism	0	3	0	0	2	0	2	3
Islam	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0
Nil	4	4	0	1	5	2	2	3
Integration into school curriculum
Formal curriculum (e.g., Liberal Studies, Religious Studies, Life Education)	3	12	2	3	7	2	3	8
Class teachers’ period	1	2	1	1	7	1	1	4
Others	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	2
Average no. of students in the class	35.2	36.7	30	34.3	34.5	29.7	35.8	35.1
Program implementers
Social worker	1	2	1	0	5	0	3	2
Teacher	1	6	1	1	7	2	0	6
Social worker + teacher	4	6	1	3	2	1	1	6
Total no. of units observed	12	22	3	7	21	5	7	20

Note. S1: Secondary 1 level; S2: Secondary 2 level; S3: Secondary 3 level; EIP: Experimental Implementation Phase; FIP: Full Implementation Phase.