PMC9034648

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention participants displayed significantly higher levels of academic engagement than control students (B=.08, SE=.04, p<.05), with no effect at post-intervention (B=.02

Effect: improvement; B = .08 (SE = .04)