Coping Power Program

Study: Field Trial

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: 531 students (351 program, 180 control)

Risk Status: Rating scale used to screen students measured proactive and reactive aggression.

Demographics:

 

Program

Control

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Grade level

  Kindergarten

       

  Grade 1

       

  Grade 2

 

 

 

 

  Grade 3

 

 

 

 

  Grade 4

351

66%

180

34%

  Grade 5

 

 

 

 

  Grade 6

 

 

 

 

  Grade 7

 

 

 

 

  Grade 8

 

 

 

 

  Grade 9

 

 

 

 

  Grade 10

 

 

 

 

  Grade 11

 

 

 

 

  Grade 12

 

 

 

 

Mean Age

 

 

 

 

Race-ethnicity

  African-American

 

 

 

 

  American Indian

 

 

 

 

  Asian/Pacific Islander

 

 

 

 

  Hispanic

 

 

 

 

  White

 

 

 

 

  Other

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

  Male

 

 

 

 

Training of Instructors: Seventy-nine percent of the counselors were trained at the master’s degree level, with the remainder having bachelor’s or doctoral degrees (CP-TF: 15 master’s; CPBT: 1 bachelor’s, 13 master’s, 3 PhDs; comparison: 10 master’s, 6 PhDs, 1 unknown). Seventy-eight percent were certified as school counselors (CP-TF: 12; CP-BT: 12; comparison: 14), and 16% were licensed in the state as mental health counselors (2–3 in each condition). In terms of prior work experience, nearly 80% had worked with groups (CP-TF: 15; CP-BT: 11; comparison: 12), and about three quarters of the counselors had not used an intervention that they regarded as similar to Coping Power in the past (CP-TF: 9; CP-BT: 14; comparison: 12). Twenty-four percent of counselors reported using structured manualized group interventions, but there was no single specific type of program that was being widely disseminated or used by counselors in these schools.    

Coping power–training plus feedback (CP-TF): CP-TF provided more intensive training and had four training components. First, the school counselors received a total of three initial workshop training days in the fall, prior to the beginning of intervention. Second, the school counselors participated in monthly ongoing training sessions (2.0 hr) in which the trainers provided concrete training for upcoming sessions, debriefed previous sessions, and conducted problem solving concerning barriers and difficulties involved in the implementation of the program. Third, individualized problem solving concerning barriers and difficulties in the implementation of the program was available to only counselors in the CP-TF condition through a technical assistance component. This component included access by the implementation staff to an e-mail account in which they could raise implementation concerns and problems and through which they could receive trainers’ responses; it also included a telephone hotline through which trainers were available for consultation about these same concerns. Fourth, the trainers reviewed the rate of completion of session objectives and provided individualized supervisory feedback through written and telephone contacts with the school counselors to enhance the intervention integrity. Counselors in this condition received from their trainer a monthly letter, followed up with a phone call when serious concerns with implementation were evident. In addition to noting the objectives that had been fully, partially, or not met based on the trainers’ review of session audiotapes, the trainers provided qualitative feedback on the enthusiasm of children’s or parents’ involvement in the session, the ability of counselors to stimulate discussion and elaborate and clarify material while still staying on the topic, the counselors’ ability to engage students in positive ways, and the counselors’ use of appropriate monitoring and consequences during sessions.

Coping power–basic training (CP-BT): CP-BT had two training components. First, the school counselors received a total of three initial workshop training days in the fall, prior to the beginning of intervention. Second, the counselors participated in monthly ongoing training sessions (2 hr) in which the trainers provided concrete training for upcoming sessions, debriefed previous sessions, and conducted problem solving concerning barriers and difficulties involved in program implementation. These sessions were conducted separately for CP-BT counselors but were equivalent to the ongoing monthly training sessions for the CP-TF condition.

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?: Not Applicable

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)?: No

Implemented with Fidelity: Partially Convincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Intervention integrity. To ensure that these Coping Power intervention components were provided as planned, we formulated procedures for evaluating intervention integrity. Intervention manuals were used for both the Coping Power child component and parent component interventions. These manuals indicated session goals and the activities to be used in the session to attain those goals. While some degree of individualization of the intervention programs was permitted, allowing the interveners to adapt the terminology used or to spend more time on certain sections of the intervention to address children’s and/or parents’ particular deficits, all sections of the interventions were expected to be administered. Intervention sessions were audiotaped, and trained research staff coded each taped session for intervention integrity based on the number of objectives completed.

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

Outcome Expectation Questionnaire

Internal consistency has been moderate for this subscale (alpha =  0.51), and construct validity for this subscale with aggressive children has been supported by Lochman and Dodge (1994) and Dodge et al. (1997).

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

 

APQ Inconsistent Discipline

The APQ has displayed excellent construct validity in prior research (Shelton et al., 1996), and its subscales have been associated with childhood aggression. The Inconsistent Discipline subscale has been found to relate to observations of parenting in the home setting (Hawes & Dadds, 2006), and the factor structure has been supported in confirmatory factor analyses (Elgar, Waschbusch, Dadds, & Sigvaldason, 2006; Essau, Sasagawa,& Frick, 2006). The scales have displayed generally adequate internal consistency in our prior sample (alpha = 0.6 –0.8) funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and 1-year test–retest reliability in prior longitudinal assessments has been adequate (alpha = 0.57–0.64; Lochman & Wells, 2002a).

Parenting skills

 

 

Broader Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

National Youth Survey

The NYS has displayed adequate test–retest and criterion validity (Elliott & Huizinga, 1983).

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

 

BASC

The BASC has demonstrated strong reliability (alpha = 0.80 –0.89) and construct validity (Doyle, Ostrander, Skare, Crosby, & August, 1997; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992).

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

 

 

Mean ES Targeted Outcomes: Data Unavailableu

Mean ES Administrative Outcomes: N/A

Effect Size:

Targeted Measures

Measure

Effect Size

CP - Training + Feedback: BASC Externalizing Composite - Teacher

CP - Training + Feedback: BASC Externalizing Composite - Parent

CP - Training + Feedback: BASC Social/Academic Composite - Teacher

CP - Training + Feedback: BASC Social/Academic Composite - Parent

0.06 u

CP - Training + Feedback: National Youth Survey

0.20 u

CP - Basic Training: BASC Externalizing Composite - Teacher

CP - Basic Training:  BASC Externalizing Composite - Parent

CP - Basic Training: BASC Social/Academic Composite - Teacher

CP - Basic Training: BASC Social/Academic Composite - Parent

0.14 u

CP - Basic Training: National Youth Survey

-0.09 u

 

Broader Measures

Measure

Effect Size

CP - Training + Feedback: Outcome Expectation Questionnaire

-0.25 * u

CP - Training + Feedback: APQ Inconsistent Discipline

0.00 u

CP - Basic Training: Outcome Expectation Questionnaire

0.00 u

CP - Basic Training: APQ Inconsistent Discipline

0.00 u

 

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