Coping Power Program
Study: Lochman et al. (2006)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

Children’s eligibility for participation in this study was determined by 4th grade teacher ratings of 6 items assessing overt proactive and reactive aggressive behavior (Dodge and Coie 1987). Using a screening procedure typical for targeted preventive interventions (e.g. Lochman et al. 1995), students were eligible for the project if their aggression scores were in the top 30 % for all children rated, thus clearly indicating to what degree participant children were at-risk relative to the population. Families of eligible students were invited to participate during the summer prior to the child’s entry into 5th grade.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):

Ratings were made on proactive and reactive aggressive behavior, and eligible children scored in the top 30%.

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:

Coping Power - Child Component. The child component of Coping Power is an enhanced and expanded version of the Anger Coping program (Larson and Lochman 2010). The intervention was delivered in small groups of approximately 4–6 children at eight participating elementary schools. Each session lasted approximately 50–60 min and followed a planned agenda, with specific intervention activities repeated at the beginning (goal setting, content and homework review) and end (homework assignment, positive feedback, prize box) of each session. New topics and skills were introduced and practiced in the middle of each session. The specific skills taught in the Coping Power child intervention include: a) setting short-term and long-term personal behavior goals; b) attending to physiological cues of anger arousal; c) using distraction, deep breathing, and self-instruction to cope with anger arousal; d) learning to view problem situations from others’ perspectives; e) learning to solve social problems more effectively by evaluating potential choices and consequences and practicing verbally assertive solutions; and f) resisting peer pressure, and affiliating with positive peers. The child group sessions were also supplemented with brief monthly individual contacts (20–30 min each) to discuss program content. The children assigned to the intervention condition received nearly the full dose of the Coping Power Child Component, with an average child attendance rate of 87 %. Coping Power - Parent Component. In the current study, the parent component of Coping Power included 10 parent group sessions that were offered 1–2 times per month during the 5th grade year. Parent sessions were held at the child’s school or a convenient community location and lasted 90 min each. Parent groups were facilitated by the child group leaders, who shared information about the children’s progress. The agenda for Coping Power parent sessions included a social gathering time to foster supportive bonds between parents; discussion of content from child sessions; recall of skills from prior parent sessions; review of home practice activities; introduction and practice of new parenting skills; and assignment of new home practice activities. The skills taught in the parent intervention included helping parents: a) develop and maintain a positive relationship with their child; b) create a supportive and cohesive family environment; c) support their child’s academic success; d) manage their own mood and the stress of parenting; e) give clear instructions; f) implement a consistent behavior management system; and g) teach their child to solve interpersonal problems more effectively.

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):

The study included three conditions: 61 students received the abbreviated Coping Power program during 5th grade (CP); 60 students were offered abbreviated Coping Power during 5th grade as well as a Booster intervention (described below) during 6th grade (CP-B); and 120 students formed the care-as-usual control condition. Coping Power with booster - students received monthly intervention sessions during their 6th grade year (the year following their participation in Coping Power). For the demographic section below, the CP and CP-B conditions have been combined under "Program."

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, Boxmeyer et al. (2006), p. 24: In the administration of the abbreviated Coping Power Program used for this example, 240 aggressive fifth grade boys (64 percent) and girls (36 percent) identified as at-risk for delinquent behavior were randomly assigned to either the Coping Power intervention (n _ 120) or to a no-treatment control condition (n _ 120). Participants were selected who were rated as being in the top 30 percent of fourth grade students on teacher ratings of aggressive behavior. Eighty-five percent of the families initially contacted agreed to participate, resulting in the total sample of 240. The analyses below report on the 224 participants (n _ 112 in each condition) for whom complete outcome data are available. Lochman, Baden et al. (2013). Children’s eligibility for participation in this study was determined by 4th grade teacher ratings of 6 items assessing overt proactive and reactive aggressive behavior (Dodge and Coie 1987). Using a screening procedure typical for targeted preventive interventions (e.g. Lochman et al. 1995), students were eligible for the project if their aggression scores were in the top 30 % for all children rated, thus clearly indicating to what degree participant children were at-risk relative to the population. Families of eligible students were invited to participate during the summer prior to the child’s entry into 5th grade.

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 two members of the research team, typically one doctoral-level and one master’s-level staff member. Problem-solving about group issues occurred at weekly supervision meetings

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.

Following each child and parent group meeting, leaders completed self report measures of intervention integrity indicating the extent to which each manualized session objective had been covered (i.e., “completely,” “partially,” or “not at all”).

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:

Multilevel statistical models examine students’ behavior changes over time by analyzing the longitudinal effects of the intervention conditions on behavior atmultiple time points nested within students (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). Growth models were constructed to examine the longitudinal effects of intervention conditions while taking into account student level variables (gender; ethnicity; screening level; repeated grade) and to potentially control variations between schools by using HLM 6.02 with the full maximum likelihood (FML) estimation method used to estimate missing data.