Lochman, John E.; Wells, Karen C. (2004). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, v72 n4 p571-578. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ684724
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Substance abuse: Parent report |
Coping Power vs. business as usual |
1 year follow-up |
Grades 4 and 5: Child + Parent group;
|
-0.10 |
0.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
School Behavior Improvement: Parent report |
Coping Power vs. Business as usual |
1 year follow-up |
Grades 4 and 5: Child + Parent group;
|
2.80 |
2.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
National Youth Survey (NYS): Covert Delinquency Subscale |
Coping Power vs. business as usual |
1 year follow-up |
Grades 4 and 5: Child + Parent group;
|
0.40 |
0.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
National Youth Survey (NYS): Overt Delinquency Child Report |
Coping Power vs. business as usual |
1 year follow-up |
Grades 4 and 5: Child + Parent group;
|
0.60 |
0.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
National Youth Survey (NYS): Substance Abuse Child Report |
Coping Power vs. Business as usual |
1 year follow-up |
Grades 4 and 5: Child + Parent group;
|
0.20 |
0.20 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
School Behavior Improvement: Parent report |
Coping Power vs. Business as usual |
1 year follow-up |
Grades 4 and 5: Child-only group;
|
2.90 |
2.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Substance abuse: Parent report |
Coping Power vs. business as usual |
1 year follow-up |
Grades 4 and 5: Child-only group;
|
0.30 |
0.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
National Youth Survey (NYS): Covert Delinquency Subscale |
Coping Power vs. business as usual |
1 year follow-up |
Grades 4 and 5: Child-only group;
|
0.70 |
0.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
National Youth Survey (NYS): Substance Abuse Child Report |
Coping Power vs. Business as usual |
1 year follow-up |
Grades 4 and 5: Child-only group;
|
0.10 |
0.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
National Youth Survey (NYS): Overt Delinquency Child Report |
Coping Power vs. business as usual |
1 year follow-up |
Grades 4 and 5: Child-only group;
|
0.60 |
0.60 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 61% | |
| Other or unknown | 1% | |
| White | 38% |
The sample was selected from 11 elementary schools in North Carolina.
A total of 1,578 boys in fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms across two cohorts were screened for aggressive behavior. Screening was based on teacher ratings of physical and verbal aggression and disruptive behavior. The initial pool of 546 boys scored in the top 22% of teachers’ ratings. Parents were then contacted for consent to administer two additional screens using the Teacher Report Form and the Child Behavior Checklist. Researchers stopped collecting consent after they gathered a sample of 183 students who met the minimum requirements for the study. This sample was then randomly assigned to three conditions (child and parent components of Coping Power = 60; child-only component = 60; comparison condition = 63). The analysis sample consisted of 94 students (child and parent components of Coping Power = 46; comparison condition = 48). Fifty-five percent of the sample was in grade 4, and the remaining boys were in grade 5. Sixty-one percent of the children were African American, and 38% were Caucasian. The mean income levels for the families were between $25,000 and $30,000 per year.
Coping Power is designed to have both a child and a parent component. One study group received both the child and parent components, and the other group received only the child component of Coping Power. The child component for both groups consisted of 40- to 60-minute group sessions for four to six children. Groups were led by a school guidance counselor and a grant-funded family-school program specialist. There were 8 sessions in year 1 and 25 sessions in year 2. Boys also had an average of 1.4 individual meetings per month with staff to reinforce and support their goal-setting efforts and use of intervention procedures. The parent component consisted of 16 parent group sessions offered over a 15-month period and was led by two grant-funded staff persons at the school. Attendance for student group sessions was 83%, and attendance in the parent groups was 49%. Staff members were required to deliver all intervention lessons but were allowed to spend additional time on certain sections.
The comparison group did not participate in Coping Power. Comparison children received services typically offered by their schools. The parents of these students did not participate in any parent sessions.
The study measured outcomes using the National Youth Survey (NYS) Covert Delinquency, Overt Delinquency, and Substance Abuse subscales, as well as parent reports of child substance abuse and teacher reports of school behavior improvement. One-year follow-up assessments were collected two summers after the intervention ended. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
All grant-funded staff and school counselors received a 10-hour training program as well as weekly scheduled supervision of their intervention work. They received intervention manuals that indicated session goals and specific activities. Intervention staff rated the level of accomplishment of each objective at the end of each intervention session, and these rating sheets were reviewed by the supervisor during the weekly sessions.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2002). Contextual social-cognitive mediators and child outcome: A test of the theoretical model in the Coping Power program. Development and Psychopathology, 14(4), 945–967.
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