Lochman, John E.; Boxmeyer, Caroline; Powell, Nicole; Qu, Lixin; Wells, Karen; Windle, Michael (2009). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, v77 n3 p397-409. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ842419
Reviewed: October 2011
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Coping Power.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC) Externalizing Composite Teacher Rating Scale |
Coping Power vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 4 and 5;
|
26.40 |
32.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
National Youth Survey (NYS): Minor Assault Scale |
Coping Power vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 4 and 5;
|
0.60 |
0.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC) Externalizing Composite Parent Rating Scale |
Coping Power vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 4 and 5;
|
19.60 |
20.20 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC) Social/Acadmic Composite Teacher Rating Scale |
Coping Power vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 4 and 5;
|
49.50 |
43.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
BASC Social Composite Parent Rating Scale |
Coping Power vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 4 and 5;
|
55.00 |
54.20 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 84% |
The schools came from five districts in northern Alabama (33 schools were located in Birmingham, 11 in Tuscaloosa or Tuscaloosa County, 5 in Bessemer City, and 8 in Shelby County). The set of schools is diverse and covers both urban and suburban areas.
A total of 49 counselors from 57 schools and five school districts were assigned to the Coping Power Training + Feedback condition (CP-TF), the Coping Power Basic Training condition (CP-BT), or a no-treatment comparison group. Nineteen schools were assigned to each condition. The sample consisted of two cohorts of students, with 13 schools in the first cohort and 44 schools in the second cohort. Randomization to study condition took place at the school counselor level and was stratified by district; eight counselors worked with two schools each, so these schools were assigned as pairs. Students were selected for participation based on third-grade teachers’ ratings of six aggressive behaviors in the spring semester. The 30% most aggressive students across all classrooms, excluding the top 2%, were considered potentially eligible for the study. A total of 1,435 students met these criteria. Within each school’s pool of eligible students, families were randomly contacted until a maximum of 10 families agreed to participate. The same process was used in both treatment and comparison schools. The initial sample consisted of 531 “high-risk” students (CP-TF = 168; CP-BT = 183; comparison group = 180) who were included in the study based on the Teacher Report of Reactive and Proactive Aggression (Dodge et al. 1997).16 The analysis sample consists of 332 students. The program was delivered to participants during fourth and fifth grade. A majority of the sample was made up of African American (84%) and male (65%) students.
Coping Power had a child and parent component and was implemented by school staff. Children received thirty-four 50- to 60-minute group sessions during school time, and parents received sixteen 90-minute group sessions. The intervention lasted over two school years (grades 4 and 5). Children and parents respectively attended 11 and 5 sessions in the fourthgrade year and the remaining sessions in the fifth-grade year. Children also received monthly individual sessions. Parents met in groups of 10 or fewer or in parent dyads. Fidelity of program implementation was assessed by researchers through eight variables evaluating program delivery and counselor engagement. Seven of the measures were derived from audiotapes of child and parent sessions; parents attended less than 25% of scheduled parent sessions.
Usual counseling services were provided in these schools. The comparison group was led by 17 counselors, with a mean of 9.4 years of experience. Fourteen staff members were certified as school counselors, 10 had a master’s degree, and 6 held a Ph.D. The report indicates that these counselors were comparable to counselors in the other two study conditions with regard to education and experience.
This study included parent and teacher ratings on the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC), including the externalizing and social/academic composites. The National Youth Survey (NYS) Minor Assault Scale also was used. The study measured outcomes before and after two school years of implementation. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
By nature of the study, counselors in the CP-TF condition received more intensive training than counselors in the CP-BT condition. The CP-BT counselors attended three workshop training days in the fall before the intervention and two-hour monthly sessions throughout the study. The CP-TF counselors received these components plus individualized technical assistance for specific problems via email or over the phone; trainers also reviewed the rate of session completion and gave feedback to counselors in the CP-TF condition. Counselors in the CP-TF condition received the version of Coping Power that is recommended by the developers; this more intensive training reflects how the program has evolved for application in real-life, community settings outside of a research setting. Training to all counselors was provided by four of the research authors, who were doctoral-level clinical psychologists.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube