Coping Power Program

Study: CSAP

Study Type: Group-Design

Descriptive Information Usage Acquisition and Cost Program Specifications and Requirements Training

The Coping Power Program is a preventive intervention delivered to at-risk children in the late elementary school and early middle school years. Developed as a school-based program, Coping Power has also been adapted for delivery in mental health settings. Coping Power is based on an empirical model of risk factors for substance use and delinquency and addresses key factors including: social competence, self-regulation, and positive parental involvement. The program lasts 15 to 18 months in its full form. An abbreviated version encompassing one school year is also available.

Coping Power is intended for use in fourth grade through middle school. The program is intended for use with students with emotional or behavioral disabilities and any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties.

The area of focus is externalizing behavior, which includes: physical aggression, verbal threats, property destruction, noncompliance, high levels of disengagement, disruptive behavior, and social behavior.

Where to Obtain: Oxford University Press

Address: 2001 Evans Road, Cary, NC, 27513

Phone: 1-800-445-9714

Website: www.oup.com

Costs include parent and child program facilitator's guides for the program leader, and workbooks for each child and parent participant:

Child component facilitator's guide ($57.95).

Client workbooks for the child component ($64.00 for a set of 6).

Parent component facilitator's guide ($47.95).     

Client workbooks for the parent component ($98.50 for a set of 6).

Materials needed for the program (to be obtained by the clinician) are estimated at $320 for a group of 6 students and their parents:    

$250 Prizes for children     

$25 Puppets      

$10 Game supplies: dominoes, deck of cards

$35 Art supplies:  tape, glue, markers, poster board, construction paper

Typical training costs:

2-day on-site training = $2,500 + trainer’s travel expenses.

2 or 1.5 day training at 6 hours/day = $1,200 (Webinar or on UA campus).

Consultation Calls:  1 hour/month x 12 months x $100 = $1,200  

Coping Power is designed for use with small groups of 4-6 students. One to two interventionists are needed for implementation.

Program administration time is 45-60 minutes, 1 session/week for 34 weeks.

The program includes highly specified manuals or instructions for implementation.

The program is not affiliated with a broad school or class wide management program.

This program does not require technology for implementation.

Twelve hours of training are required for the interventionist. Training typically consists of 2 workshop training days, which can be presented in-person or online.  The workshop covers development of the Coping Power program, empirical support for the program, and an overview of all child and parent program content. Demonstrations (live and video), discussion, and role plays are employed to transmit information and build skills. Follow-up training is also recommended, including bi-weekly consultation calls and submission of video recorded sessions for review and feedback from project staff. 

Interventionists must be professionals. The program assumes that the interventionist has expertise in implementing groups with children referred for disruptive behavior.

Training manuals and materials are not available.

Practitioners may obtain ongoing support through scheduled conference calls and through email.

 

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Sample size: 245 students (120 program, 125 control)

Risk Status: The sample of 245 boys were in the top 31% of teachers’ ratings of children’s aggressive and disruptive behaviors.

Demographics:

 

Program

Control

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Grade level

  Kindergarten

       

  Grade 1

       

  Grade 2

 

 

 

 

  Grade 3

 

 

 

 

  Grade 4

 

 

 

 

  Grade 5

120

49%

125

51%

  Grade 6

 

 

 

 

  Grade 7

 

 

 

 

  Grade 8

 

 

 

 

  Grade 9

 

 

 

 

  Grade 10

 

 

 

 

  Grade 11

 

 

 

 

  Grade 12

 

 

 

 

Mean Age

 

 

 

 

Race-ethnicity

  African-American

92

38%

99

40%

  American Indian

 

 

 

 

  Asian/Pacific Islander

 

 

 

 

  Hispanic

 

 

 

 

  White

28

11%

26

11%

  Other

 

 

 

 

Socioeconomic status

  Subsidized lunch

 

 

 

 

  No subsidized lunch

 

 

 

 

Disability status

  Speech-language impairments

       

  Learning disabilities

       

  Behavior disorders

       

  Mental retardation

       

  Other

 

 

 

 

  Not identified with a disability

 

 

 

 

ELL status

  English language learner

 

 

 

 

  Not English language learner

 

 

 

 

Gender

  Female

40

16%

48

20%

  Male

80

33%

76

31%

Training of Instructors: The group sessions were co-led by a grant-funded staff school-family program specialist and a school guidance counselor. All grant-funded staff, as well as school counselors, received a 10-hour training program prior to the start of, and during, intervention, and received weekly scheduled supervision of their intervention work. 

Design: Partially Convincing Evidence

Did the study use random assignment?: Yes

If not, was it a tenable quasi-experiment?: Not Applicable

If the study used random assignment, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures central to the study (i.e., pretest measures also used as outcomes)?: Yes

If not, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.50 SD on measures central to the study (i.e., pretest measures also used as outcomes), and outcomes were analyzed to adjust for pretreatment differences?: Yes

Were the program and control groups demographically comparable?: Yes

Was there differential attrition for the program and the control groups?: No 

Did the unit of analysis match the unit for random assignment (for randomized studies) or the assignment strategy (for quasi-experiments)?: Yes

Implemented with Fidelity: Partially Convincing Evidence

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Attributional measure

 

Perspective taking and attribution re-training

 

Outcome Expectation Questionnaire

Alphas = 0.72 to 0.83 across waves of assessment. Test-retest reliability across 1 year (Time 1-3) = 0.46 to 0.61.

Problem solving; understanding consequences of behavioral choices in social problem situations

 

Teacher Rating of Children's Social Skills

Alpha = 0.94

Social Skills Training

 

TOCA-R Social Relations Problems

Internal consistency ranges from 0.86 to 0.93. Test-retest reliability was 0.45 for Time 1-2. 

Social Skills Training

 

End of School Year Assessment

 

Problem Solving and Anger Management Skills

 

Parent Involvement in the Schools

Alphas above 0.83 across three timepoints. Test-retest reliability across 1-year intervals = 0.45-0.48 (Time 1-3).

Parenting Skills

 

Alabama Parenting Questionnaire

Alphas less than 0.5 across three waves. Test-retest reliability across 1-year intervals =0.57-0.64 (Time 1-3).

Parenting Skills

 

Family Relations Scale

Internal consistency above 0.7 across three waves. Test-retest reliability across 1-year intervals = 0.54-0.63 (Time 1-3).

Parenting Skills

 

 

Broader Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

CSAP Student Survey

Reliability and validity demonstrated by MacKinnon & Dwyer, 2003.

Program focus on addressing risk factors for youth substance use.

 

Proactive-Reactive Aggressive Behavior Scale

The two subscales are for Reactive Aggression and for Proactive Aggression, and the subscales had adequate internal consistency (alphas ranging from 0.73-0.86). Adequate test-retest reliability was found in Time 1-3 assessments for parent-rated proactive aggression (0.70-0.75).  The 1-year test-retest reliability across Time 2-3 assessments was 0.31 for teacher-rated proactive aggression, and 0.28 for teacher-rated reactive aggression.

Aggression as a risk factor for youth substance use, violence, delinquency

 

Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation - Aggression scale

Internal consistency  =0.87 (Lochman & CPPRG, 1995).  Validity and sensitivity to change in longitudinal research demonstrated in Werthamer-Larsson, Kellam, & Wheeler, 1991). Test-retest reliability across 1 year in Time-2 was 0.56.

Aggression as a risk factor for youth substance use, violence, delinquency

 

Early Adolescent Temperament Measure

Alphas = above 0.60. Test-retest reliability across 1 year with Time 1-3 assessments were 0.44-0.57 for fear, and 0.30-0.51 for activity level.

Risk factors for youth substance use, violence, and delinquency

 

Abbreviated Dysregulation Inventory

Alphas are in the 0.80s for cognitive dysregulation, affective dysregulation, and behavioral dysregulation scales. Test-retest reliability for 1-year intervals (Time 1-3) were 0.57 to 0.59.

Risk factors for youth substance use, violence, and delinquency

 

Perceived Competence Scale for Children - Social Competence

Alphas = 0.65 to 0.72.  Test-retest reliability across 1-year (Time1-3) was 0.41 to 0.52 for Peer Competence and 0.47 to 0.53 for Athletic Competence.

Risk factors for youth substance use, violence, and delinquency

 

Perceived Peer Behavioral Norms

Internal consistency: alpha = 0.57 (Time 1), alpha = 0.78 (Time 2), alpha = 0.77 (Time 3). Test-retest reliability for 1-year intervals (Time 1-3) were 0.43 to 0.60.

Risk factors for youth substance use, violence, and delinquency

 

Kentucky School Bonding

Alpha = 0.57 to 0.64 across timepoints. Test-retest reliability for 1-year intervals (Time 1-3) = 0.45.

Risk factors for youth substance use, violence, and delinquency

 

PCSC Academic Competence

Test-retest reliability for 1-year intervals (Time 1-3) were 0.43 to 0.47.      

Risk factors for youth substance use, violence, and delinquency

 

National Youth Survey

Construct validity demonstrated in Elliott & Huizinga, 1983; Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985.

Youth substance use

 

 

Mean ES Targeted Outcomes: Data Unavailable

Mean ES Administrative Outcomes: N/A

Effect Size:

Targeted Measures

Measure

Effect Size

Outcome Expectations

-0.01

Parent Involvement in School

-0.06

Harsh Parenting

-0.02

Teacher Rated Behavioral Improvement

0.34*

Teacher Rated Problem Solving

Teacher Rated Social Skills

 

Broader Measures

Measure

Effect Size

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Marijuana use

0.17

Proactive Aggression-Parent

0.24

Reactive Aggression-Parent

0.10

TOCA-R Aggression - Teacher

-0.06

Dysregulation

-0.02

Proactive Aggression-Teacher

0.04

Reactive Aggression-Teacher

0.01

Perceived Peers’ Behavior Norms

0.09

School Bonding

0.18

Child Academic Competence

0.12

Temperament-Fear

-0.04

Temperament-Activity Level

0.02

Lack of Supportiveness

0.08

 

Key

*        p ≤ .05

**      p ≤ .01

***    p ≤ .001

–      Developer was unable to provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes

u      Effect size is based on unadjusted means

†      Effect size based on unadjusted means not reported due to lack of pretest group equivalency, and effect size based on adjusted means is not available

 

Visual Analysis (Single-Subject Designs): N/A

Disaggregated Outcome Data Available for Demographic Subgroups: No

Target Behavior(s): Externalizing

Delivery: Small groups (n=4-6)

Fidelity of Implementation Check List Available: No

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Paraprofessionals 12 hours of training

Intervention Reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse: Yes – Intervention

What Works Clearinghouse Review

Children Identified With Or At Risk For An Emotional Disturbance Protocol

Effectiveness: Coping Power was found to have positive effects on external behavior and potentially positive effects on social outcomes for children classified with an emotional disturbance.

Studies Reviewed: 3 studies meet standards out of 5 studies total

Full Report

Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 0 studies