Lochman, John E.; Boxmeyer, Caroline; Powell, Nicole; Roth, David L.; Windle, Michael (2006). New Directions for Evaluation, n110 p19-32. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ792293
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 |
Grade 5;
|
36.20 |
33.60 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 69% | |
| Other or unknown | 1% | |
| White | 30% |
The study took place across seven elementary schools in Alabama. The student intervention was delivered by pairs of researchers through weekly small-group sessions in the school building. The parent component was delivered through sessions in the school building in the afternoons or evenings.
The sample consisted of fifth-grade students who were in the top 30% of grade 4 students based on teacher ratings of aggressive behavior. A total of 240 aggressive boys (64%) and girls (36%) were randomized to receive the intervention (n = 120) or be in a comparison group (n = 120). Outcome data were available for 224 boys, with 112 students in each group. The gender and race/ethnicity distribution and family composition were similar across participants in the intervention and comparison conditions. Sixty-nine percent of the children self-identified as African American, 30% as Caucasian, and 1% as another race or ethnicity. Forty percent of the children lived with a single mother.
This study used an abbreviated version of the Coping Power program. Students participated in 24 child group sessions led by pairs of researchers; each group included five to six students. Sessions focused on coping and problem-solving skills, as well as strategies for enhancing social relationships and resisting peer pressure. The children had an overall attendance rate of 93%. Parents of students in the intervention group were invited to take part in parent sessions held in the school two times each month. These groups focused on behavior management skills and improving family problem solving, communication, and cohesion. The groups included parents and primary caregivers of the target children. Thirty percent of parents did not attend any of the 10 sessions offered.
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.
This study used teacher ratings on the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC) external behavior scale, conducted before and after the intervention. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Pairs of researchers implemented the intervention. No information is provided about training.
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