Coping Power Program
Study: Lochman & Wells (2002); Lochman & Wells (2004)

Summary

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.

Target Grades:
4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Target Populations:
  • Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
  • Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Physical Aggression
  • Verbal Threats
  • Property Destruction
  • Noncompliance
  • High Levels of Disengagement
  • Disruptive Behavior
  • Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
Where to Obtain:
John E. Lochman, Ph.D., and Karen Wells, Ph.D. - Oxford University Press
2001 Evans Road, Cary, North Carolina 27513
1-800-445-9714
www.oup.com
Initial Cost:
$588.40 per set of materials
Replacement Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.

Costs include parent and child program faciliatator's guides for the program leader, and workbooks for each child and parent participant: Child component faciliatator'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, posterboard, 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

Staff Qualified to Administer Include:
  • Special Education Teacher
  • General Education Teacher
  • Reading Specialist
  • Math Specialist
  • EL Specialist
  • Interventionist
  • Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
  • Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
Training Requirements:
12 hours of training.

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 Training typically consists of 2 workshop training days, which can be presented in-person or on-line. 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.


Access to Technical Support:
through scheduled conference calls; email contact
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Small group of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
45
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
1
Minimum Number of Weeks:
34
Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
Yes
Is Technology Required?
No technology is required.

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

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.

The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).

not selected Age 0-3
not selected Age 3-5
not selected Kindergarten
not selected First grade
not selected Second grade
not selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
selected Fifth grade
selected Sixth grade
selected Seventh grade
selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

not selected Students with disabilities only
not selected Students with learning disabilities
not selected Students with intellectual disabilities
selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
not selected English language learners
not selected Any student at risk for academic failure
selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.

Early Literacy

not selected Print knowledge/awareness
not selected Alphabet knowledge
not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonological awarenessEarly writing
not selected Early decoding abilities
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Language

not selected Expressive and receptive vocabulary
not selected Grammar
not selected Syntax
not selected Listening comprehension
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Reading

not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonics/word study
not selected Comprehension
not selected Fluency
not selected Vocabulary
not selected Spelling
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Mathematics

not selected Computation
not selected Concepts and/or word problems
not selected Whole number arithmetic
not selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
not selected Algebra
not selected Fractions, decimals (rational number)
not selected Geometry and measurement
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Writing

not selected Handwriting
not selected Spelling
not selected Sentence construction
not selected Planning and revising
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.

Externalizing Behavior

selected Physical Aggression
selected Verbal Threats
selected Property Destruction
selected Noncompliance
selected High Levels of Disengagement
selected Disruptive Behavior
selected Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Internalizing Behavior

not selected Depression
not selected Anxiety
not selected Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
not selected School Phobia
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Acquisition and cost information

Where to obtain:

Address
2001 Evans Road, Cary, North Carolina 27513
Phone Number
1-800-445-9714
Website
www.oup.com

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$588.40
Unit of cost
set of materials

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
Unit of cost
Duration of license

Additional cost information:

Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the program. Also, provide information on what is included in the published program, as well as what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access)

Costs include parent and child program faciliatator's guides for the program leader, and workbooks for each child and parent participant: Child component faciliatator'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, posterboard, 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

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

not selected Individual students
selected Small group of students
not selected BI ONLY: A classroom of students

If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?

   4-6

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
45
Minimum number of sessions per week
1
Minimum number of weeks
34
not selected N/A (implemented until effective)

If intervention program is intended to occur over less frequently than 60 minutes a week for approximately 8 weeks, justify the level of intensity:

Does the program include highly specified teacher manuals or step by step instructions for implementation?
Yes

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Is the program affiliated with a broad school- or class-wide management program?
No

If yes, please identify and describe the broader school- or class-wide management program:

Does the program require technology?
No

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program?
not selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

Training

How many people are needed to implement the program ?
1

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
Yes
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?
At-cost

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
12 hours of training.

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:
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 Training typically consists of 2 workshop training days, which can be presented in-person or on-line. 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.

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
selected Reading Specialist
selected Math Specialist
selected EL Specialist
selected Interventionist
selected Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
selected Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
not selected Paraprofessional
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
Yes   

If yes, please describe: 

implementing groups with children referred for disruptive behavior

Are training manuals and materials available?
No

Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students:

Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes

If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:

through scheduled conference calls; email contact

Summary of Evidence Base

Please identify, to the best of your knowledge, all the research studies that have been conducted to date supporting the efficacy of your program, including studies currently or previously submitted to NCII for review. Please provide citations only (in APA format); do not include any descriptive information on these studies. NCII staff will also conduct a search to confirm that the list you provide is accurate.
  

Lochman, J.E., & Wells, K.C. (2002a). Contextual social-cognitive mediators and child outcome: A test of the theoretcial model in the Coping Power Program. Development and Psychopathology, 14(4), 945-967. NIDA

 

Lochman, J.E., & Wells, K.C. (2002b). The Coping Power program at the middle school transition: Universal and indicated prevention effects. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16(4, Suppl), Special issue, S40-S54. CSAP

 

Lochman, J.E., & Wells, K.C. (2003). Effectiveness of the Coping Power program and of classroom intervention with aggressive children: Outcomes at a 1-year follow-up. Behavior Therapy, 34(4), Special issue, 493-515. CSAP

 

Lochman, J.E., & Wells, K.C. (2004). The Coping Power program for preadolescent aggressive boys and their parents: Outcome effects at the 1-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(4), 571-578. NIDA

 

Lochman, J.E., Boxmeyer, C., Powell, N., Roth, D.L. & Windle, M. (2006). Masked intervention effects: Analytic methods for addressing low dosage of intervention. New Directions for Evaluation, 110, 19-32. CDC

 

Zonnevylle-Bender, M.J.S., Matthys, W., van de wiel, N.M.H., & Lochman, J.E. (2007).  Preventive effects of treatment of disruptive behaivor disorder in middle childhood on substance use and delinquent behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 46(1), 33-39.

 

van de wiel, N.M.H., Matthys, W., Cohen-Kettenis, P.T., Maassen, G.H., Lochman, J.E., & van Engeland, H. (2007). The effectivenss of an experimental treatment when compared to care as usual depends on the type of care as usual. Behavior Modification, Vol 31(3), 298-312.

 

Lochman, J.E., Boxmeyer, C., Powell, N., Qu, L., Wells, K.C., & Windle, M. (2009). Dissemination of the Coping Power program: Importance of intensity of counselor training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(3), 397-409. FIELD TRIAL

 

Lochman, J.E., Powell, N.P., Boxmeyer, C.L., Qu, L., Wells, K.C., & Windle, M. (2009). Implementation of a school-based prevention program: Effects of counselor and school characteristics. Professional Psychology: Resarch and Practice, 40(5), 476-482. FIELD TRIAL

 

Lochman, J.E., Boxmeyer, C.L., Powell, N.P., Qu, L., & Wells, K., & Windle, M. (2013). Coping Power dissemination study: Intervention and special education effects on academic outcomes.  FIELD TRIAL

 

Lochman, J.E., Boxmeyer, C.L., Powell, N.P., Qu, L., Wells, K., & Windle, M. (2013). Does a booster intervention augment the preventive effect of an abbreviated version of the Coping Power program for aggressive children? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. CDC

 

Lochman, J.E., Wells, K.C., Qu, L., & Chen, L. (2013). Three year follow-up of Coping Power intervention effects: Evidence of neighborhood moderation? Prevention Science,14(4), 364-376. CSAP

Study Information

Study Citations

1) 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. Developmental and Psychopathology, 14(4) 945-967; 2) Lochman, J. E. & Wells, K. C. (2004). The Coping Power Program for preadolescent aggressive boys and their parents: Outcome effects at the 1-year follow-up.. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(4) 571-578.

Participants Empty Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
Boys were selected for potential involvement in this study on the basis of their teacher screen scores. Using a multiple-gating approach (Lochman & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1995), boys were retained in the high-risk pool if they surpassed cutoffs on subsequent, more detailed behavioral measures rated by teachers (Aggression subscale from the Teacher Report Form, Achenbach, 1991; completed by 84 fourth and fifth grade teachers in 11 elementary schools for Cohort 1 and by 86 fourth and fifth grade teachers in 12 elementary schools for Cohort 2) and by parents (Aggression subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist; Achenbach, 1991). Screening took place in regular classrooms, not special education classrooms.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
The sample of 183 boys were in the top 22% of boys in teachers’ ratings of children’s aggressive and disruptive behaviors.

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
  • identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?
%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • emotional disability label,
  • placed in an alternative school/classroom,
  • non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
  • designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?
%

Specify which condition is the submitted intervention:
Child component. The child component included eight intervention sessions in the 1st intervention year and 25 in the 2nd intervention year. Group sessions lasted for 40–60 min per session. The group sessions included four to six boys and were co-led by a grant-funded staff familyschool program specialist (FSPS) with a master’s or doctoral degree in psychology or social work and by a school guidance counselor. The Coping Power child component was primarily derived from a previously evaluated 18-session Anger Coping program (Lochman, 1992). The Coping Power child component sessions included a focus on the following items: behavioral and personal goal setting, awareness of feelings and associated physiological arousal, use of coping self-statements, distraction techniques and relaxation methods when provoked and made angry, organizational and study skills, perspective taking and attribution retraining, social problem-solving skills, and dealing with peer pressure and neighborhoodbased problems by using refusal skills. Parent component. The Coping Power parent component consisted of 16 parent group sessions over the same 15-month intervention period. The parent component was delivered in groups of four to six single parents or couples, and groups usually met at the boys’ schools. Groups were led by two grant staff persons (typically one FSPS and one graduate student). Assertive attempts were made to promote parent attendance (Lochman & Wells, 1996) and to include mothers and fathers in parent groups, although in most cases only one parent (usually the mother or female caretaker) attended. A supervised child waiting room was provided for parents who had no access to babysitters. Parents received a $10 stipend for attending parent sessions. The content of the Coping Power parent component was derived from social-learning-theory–based parent training programs (e.g., Patterson et al., 1992). Parents learned skills for identifying prosocial and disruptive behavioral targets in their children, rewarding appropriate child behaviors, giving effective instructions and establishing age-appropriate rules and expectations for their children, applying effective consequences to negative child behavior, and establishing on-going family communication through weekly family meetings. In addition, parents learned to support the social–cognitive skills that children learn in the Coping Power child component and to use stress-management skills to remain calm and in control during stressful or irritating disciplinary interactions with their children.

Specify which condition is the control condition:
The children in the care as usual condition received services as usual within their schools.

If you have a third, competing condition, in addition to your control and intervention condition, identify what the competing condition is (data from this competing condition will not be used):
This study involved randomization to one of three groups: (1) child intervention only (CI; n=60), (2) child plus parent intervention (CPI; n=60), and (3) control (n=63).

Using the tables that follow, provide data demonstrating comparability of the program group and control group in terms of demographics.

Grade Level

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Age less than 1
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4 101 55 0.15
Grade 5 82 45 0.09
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12

Race–Ethnicity

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
African American 112 61 0.54
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic
White 70 38 0.05
Other 1 1 0.43

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch
No Subsidized Lunch

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments
Learning Disabilities
Behavior Disorders
Emotional Disturbance
Intellectual Disabilities
Other
Not Identified With a Disability

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner
Not English Language Learner

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female
Male 183 100 Invalid

Mean Effect Size

0.04

For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences between groups in the descriptions below, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not demographic characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.

Design Half Bobble

What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups?
Random
Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups.
Lochman & Wells (2002a) p 950: The 183 boys with consent across the two cohorts were randomly assigned to the children intervention only condition (n=60), the child plus parent intervention condition (n=60), or the control condition (n=63). The children in the control condition received services as usual within their schools. The current analyses will examine the two intervention cells combined together (n=120) in comparison to the control condition. Lochman & Wells (2004), p. 573: The 183 WC boys across the two cohorts were randomly assigned to the child intervention (CI) only condition (N = 60), the child plus parent intervention (CPI) condition (N = 60), or the control (C) condition (N =63).

What was the unit of assignment?
Students
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit of assignment:

What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis?
not selected Schools
not selected Teachers
selected Students
not selected Classes
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:

Fidelity of Implementation Empty Bobble

How was the program delivered?
not selected Individually
selected Small Group
not selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
5
Minimum group size
4
Maximum group size
6

What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?

Weeks
33.00
Sessions per week
1.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
50.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
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-hr training program prior to the start of and during the intervention and received weekly scheduled supervision on their intervention work.

Describe 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.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
NA

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?
NA

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Half Bobble
Measures Broader : Half Bobble

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

  • Targeted measures
    Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills that the program was directly targeted to improve.
    • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
    • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
  • Broader measures
    Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
    • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
    • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be academic performance in that setting or on-task behavior in another setting.
  • Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

Click here for more information on effect size.


What populations are you submitting outcome data for?
selected Full sample
not selected Students at or below the 20th percentile
not selected English language learners
not selected Racial/ethnic subgroups
not selected Economically disadvantaged students (low socioeconomic status)
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance

Posttest Data

Targeted Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Targeted Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P
For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not pretest characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.
Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.
If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:
Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:
Path analyses were performed to test the hypothesis that the intervention effects on Time 3 outcomes would be mediated through changes from Time 1 to Time 2 in the targeted intervention variables. Intervention effects were tested with ANOVAs, MANCOVAs, or ANCOVAs

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
WWC
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

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

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
0
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

Disclaimer

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.