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

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

Race–Ethnicity

Socioeconomic Status

Disability Status

ELL Status

Gender

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?

Schools
Teachers
Students
Classes
Other
If other, please specify:

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

How was the program delivered?

Individually
Small Group
Classroom

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

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