Coping Power Program

Study: NIDA

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: 183 students (120 program, 63 control)

Risk Status: The sample of 183 boys were in the top 22% of boys in 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

101

55%

 

 

  Grade 5

82

45%

 

 

  Grade 6

 

 

 

 

  Grade 7

 

 

 

 

  Grade 8

 

 

 

 

  Grade 9

 

 

 

 

  Grade 10

 

 

 

 

  Grade 11

 

 

 

 

  Grade 12

 

 

 

 

Mean Age

 

 

 

 

Race-ethnicity

  African-American

112

61%

 

 

  American Indian

 

 

 

 

  Asian/Pacific Islander

 

 

 

 

  Hispanic

 

 

 

 

  White

70

38%

 

 

  Other

1

1

 

 

Socioeconomic status

  Subsidized lunch

 

 

 

 

  No subsidized lunch

 

 

 

 

Disability status

  Speech-language impairments

       

  Learning disabilities

       

  Behavior disorders

       

  Intellectual disabilities

       

  Other

 

 

 

 

  Not identified with a disability

 

 

 

 

ELL status

  English language learner

 

 

 

 

  Not English language learner

 

 

 

 

Gender

  Female

0

0

 

 

  Male

183

100

 

 

Training of Instructors: The group sessions were led by a grant-funded staff school-family program specialist (with a master's or doctoral degree in psychology or social work) 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 the intervention and received weekly scheduled supervision on 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)?: No

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?: No

Were the program and control groups demographically comparable?: Yes

Was there differential attrition for the program and the control groups?: Yes 

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: Unconvincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Intervention staff rated the level of accomplishment of each objective at the end of each intervention session, and these checklists were reviewed by the supervisors in the weekly supervision sessions. In addition, some intervention sessions were audio- or videotaped. The supervisors reviewed taped sessions on a random basis, and supervisors directly observed the delivery of some sessions.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: N/A

Measures Targeted: Partially Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Attributional measure

alpha = 0.5 for attribution response, 0.6 for anger response; 1-year test-retest reliability in previous samples: alpha = 0.3-0.4 for attribuitonal bias, 0.2-0.4 for anger.

Perspective taking and attribution re-training

 

Outcome Expectation Questionnaire

alpha = 0.4-0.6 at baseline for the study sample; previous research found test-retest reliability of 0.46-0.61 across 1-year intervals

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

 

Multidimensional Locus of Control scale

internal consistency = 0.9 for internal success subscale; internal consistency = 0.6 for external success subscale

Problem solving

 

Object Representation Inventory (Blatt, Chevron, Quinlan, & Wein, 1981) - adapted

Cronbach alpha = 0.7 at baseline

Perspective taking

 

Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (child report of parents' inconsistent discipline)

alpha = 0.6 in study sample; in previous research, 1-year test-retest reliability = 0.57-0.64

Parenting skills

 

 

Broader Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

National Youth Survey - child reported substance use, overt and covert delinquency

Adequate construct validity has been reported by Elliott & Huizing, 1983, Elliott et al., 1985; Lochman & Wayland, 1994

Program focus on reducing risk factors for youth substance use and delinquency

 

National Youth Survey-parent report of youth substance use

     

Program focus on reducing risk factors for youth substance use and delinquency

 

School behavioral improvement (teacher rating)

     

Program focus on reducing risk factors for youth substance use and delinquency

 

 

Mean ES Targeted Outcomes: Data Unavailable

Mean ES Administrative Outcomes: N/A

Effect Size:

Targeted Measures

Measure

Effect Size

N/A

 

 

Broader Measures

Measure

Effect Size

Child Intervention: National Youth Survey - Youth Report: Substance Use

Child Intervention: National Youth Survey - Youth Report: Covert Delinquency

0.11u

Child Intervention: National Youth Survey - Youth Report: Overt Delinquency

-0.08u

Child Plus Parent Intervention: National Youth Survey - Youth Report: Substance Use

-0.24u

Child Plus Parent Intervention: National Youth Survey - Youth Report: Covert Delinquency

0.41u

Child Plus Parent Intervention: National Youth Survey - Youth Report: Overt Delinquency

-0.02u

Child Intervention: National Youth Survey - Parent Report: Substance Use

Child Plus Parent Intervention: National Youth Survey - Parent Report: Substance Use

Child Intervention: Teacher Report of School Behavioral Improvement

Child Plus Parent Intervention: Teacher Report of School Behavioral Improvement

 

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