This document was printed from the website of the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (CEBC), which you can access at http://www.cebc4cw.org/
This document was printed from the website of the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (CEBC), which you can access at http://www.cebc4cw.org/
Child Welfare Outcomes: Child/family well-being
Type of Maltreatment: Not specified
Target Population: 8 to 14 year old children whose aggression puts them at risk for later delinquency
Brief Description:(The information in this program outline is provided by the program representative and edited by the CEBC staff.)
The Coping Power Program has been rated by the CEBC in the area of Disruptive Behavior Treatment (Child & Adolescent). The Coping Power Program is based on an empirical model of risk factors for potential antisocial behavior. For high-risk children, it addresses deficits in social cognition, self-regulation, peer relations, and positive parental involvement. The Coping Power Program, which has both a child and parent intervention component, is designed to be presented in an integrated manner. The Coping Power Child Component consists of 34 group sessions. The Coping Power Parent Component consists of 16 sessions offered during the same time frame. The child component focuses on anger management, social problem solving, and practicing skills to resist peer pressure. The parent component of the program focuses on supporting involvement and consistency in parenting, which also contributes to better adjustment. Improvement in all these areas, particularly around times of change such as going to middle school, can reduce the number of problem behaviors that can arise during these transitional times. Since the Coping Power Program is highly rated on the Scientific Rating Scale, information on available pre-implementation assessments, implementation tools, and fidelity measures was requested from the program representative. Please see the program's separate Implementation Information page for details.
The Coping Power Program has a child and an adult component as described below.
The Coping Power Child Component consists of 34 structured cognitive-behavioral therapy group sessions and periodic individual sessions designed to positively affect the child’s:
The Coping Power Parent Component consists of 16 structured sessions. In the sessions, the parents learn these skills:
Coping Power Program was designed to be conducted in a group.
Coping Power Program has been tested for use in a group setting.
Testing references:
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. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 971-993.
Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2003). Effectiveness study of Coping Power and classroom intervention with aggressive children: Outcomes at a one-year follow-up. Behavior Therapy, 34, 493-515.
Lochman, J E., & Wells, K. C. (2004). The Coping Power program for preadolescent aggressive boys and their parents: Outcome effects at the one-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 571-578.
The recommended group size is: 4-6 children
Recommended intensity: 50-minute weekly sessions
Recommended duration: 34 weekly sessions for the full program
Coping Power Program includes a homework component.
Description: Children and parents are given homework tasks and worksheets for some sessions
Coping Power Program is typically conducted in a(n): Outpatient Clinic and School.
Coping Power Program was designed with a Parent Component.
Coping Power Program addresses the following presenting problems and symptoms: Parent of child with anti-social tendencies
Coping Power Program was designed with a Child Component.
Coping Power Program addresses the following presenting problems and symptoms: Aggressive, disruptive and noncompliant child behavior
Age range(s): 8-14
Coping Power Program was not developed for children with developmental delays.
Coping Power Program has not been tested for children with developmental delays.
Coping Power Program has materials available in a language other than English.
Language(s) available:
Spanish. For information on which materials are available in this language, please check on the program's website or contact the program representative (all contact information is listed at the bottom of this page).
There is a manual that describes how to implement this program.
There is training available for Coping Power Program.
Training contact: John E. Lochman, PhD, ABPP, University of Alabama, Phone: 205-348-7678, Email: jlochman@ua.edu
Number of days/hours: 2-3 day workshops (depending on number of participants, and if training includes both the child and parent components); it is recommended that this workshop be followed with twice-monthly or monthly phone call consultations over the following 9-12 months
Training is obtained: Trainings in Tuscaloosa, and on site at agencies/schools
There currently are not additional qualified resources for training.
The typical resources for implementing Coping Power Program are: A/V: LCD projector needed for training; for implementation of the program, best to have access to video and/or audio taping capabilities
Space/room requirements: Space for a small group meeting.
Master's or PhD in psychology, counseling, social work or related disciplines
The Coping Power Program is rated a "1 - Well-Supported by Research Evidence" on the Scientific Rating Scale based on the published, peer-reviewed research available. The practice must have at least two rigorous randomized controlled trials with one showing a sustained effect of at least 1 year. For more information on the rating of a "1 - Well-Supported by Research Evidence," please see the Scientific Rating Scale.
Lochman, J. E., Fitzgerald, D. P., Gage, S. M., Kanaly, M. K., Whidby, J. M., Barry, T. D., et al. (2001). Effects of a social-cognitive intervention for aggressive deaf children: The Coping Power program. Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, 35, 39-61.
Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of participants: 49
Population:
Location/Institution: Unknown
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Students identified as having moderate to severe aggressive behavior problems by teachers and dormitory staff were randomly assigned to receive the intervention in year one or to receive it in year two (waitlist control). The Coping Power intervention for this study consisted of 33 group sessions. Behavioral outcomes were assessed using the Behavioral Assessment System for Children (BASC) and the Behavioral Improvement Rating. Social and emotional factors that were hypothesized to be related to aggressive behavioral outcomes were also assessed using the Language Independent Measure of Communicative Confidence (LIMCC), Meadow-Kendall Social-Emotional Assessment Inventory, Piers Harris Self-Concept Scale, Problem-Solving Measure for Conflict (PSM-C). Results showed that children in the intervention condition showed improvement on BASC scores for improvement in behavior, social problem-solving skills, and communication abilities. Limitations include a small sample size and lack of long-term follow-up.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: None.
Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2002a). Contextual social-cognitive mediators and child outcome: A test of the theoretical model in the Coping Power program. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 945-967.
Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of participants: 183
Population:
Location/Institution: Unknown
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Boys who had scored in the top 22% for teachers’ and parents’ ratings of aggressive and disruptive behaviors, using the Teacher Report Form (TRF) and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), were randomly assigned to a child-only intervention condition, a child-plus-parent intervention condition, or a control condition. The report combines the two intervention conditions in the analyses. Outcome measures included self-reports of delinquency using the National Youth Survey, parents’ reports of youth substance abuse, and behavioral improvement ratings made by teachers who were not aware of the boys’ treatment conditions. Analysis suggested that the strongest effects on later delinquent behavior were found on two traits: consistency of discipline and anger resulting from hostile attributions for others’ behavior. The authors note that the study was limited by small sample size, inclusion only of boys and by attrition, particularly for parents.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: 1 year.
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(4S), S40-S54.
Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of participants: 245
Population:
Location/Institution: Not given.
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Participants were randomly assigned to receive interventions targeting social competence, self-regulation, school bonding, and parent involvement, which are factors hypothesized to prevent later substance abuse. They received a universal intervention, targeted at all students; an indicated intervention, targeted at high-risk students; or a combination of the two interventions. There were also control classrooms who received neither intervention. Substance use was assessed using the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Student Survey. A set of 18 other measures, including the Proactive-Reactive Aggression Scale, the Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation social relations problems subscale, the Outcome Expectation Questionnaire on aggressive behavior, and the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire assessed the 4 targeted factors. Results showed lower reported substance use in intervention groups than in the control group. There were also intervention effects on social competence, self-regulation and parenting skills, but not on school bonding. Limitations included low levels of parent attendance in the intervention sessions.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: None.
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, 493-515.
Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of participants: 201 for self-report measures, 160 for teacher-reported measure.
Population:
Location/Institution: Unknown
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Note: This study uses the same sample used in Lochman & Wells, 2002b. Delinquency was assessed using self-report on the National Youth Survey; substance use was reported on the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Student Survey; aggressive behavior in school was reported by teachers using the Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation—Revised (TOCA-R). Results showed reduced self-reports of delinquency for children in the Coping Power intervention condition and reduced reported substance abuse for older children and those rated as moderately at risk. Teachers also reported lower levels of aggression for children who received Coping Power in conjunction with a related classroom intervention.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: 1 year.
Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2004). The Coping Power programs 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.
Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of participants: 183
Population:
Location/Institution: Unknown
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Participants were randomly assigned to receive a child-only version of the intervention, a child-plus-parent version, or a control condition which received usual school services. Post-intervention assessments included overt and covert delinquency measured by the National Youth Survey and by parents’ reports. Teachers also rated children’s improvement in behavior during the follow-up year. Results showed that children in the child-plus-parent intervention condition showed lover levels of covert delinquency, but not overt. Self-reported substance abuse was not affected by intervention condition, but the Coping Power intervention did result in lower parent-reported substance abuse. Boys in the intervention condition also showed improvements in school behavioral problems. Limitations include the inclusion of only boys and some issues with consent and attrition rates.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: 1 year.
van de Wiel, N. M. H., Matthys, W., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Maassen, G. H., Lochman, J. E., & van Engeland, H. (2007). The effectiveness of an experimental treatment when compared to care as usual depends on the type of care as usual. Behavior Modification, 31, 298-312.
Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of participants: 77
Population:
Location/Institution: Utrecht, Netherlands
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Children meeting a DSM-IV diagnosis of disruptive behavior disorder were randomly assigned to receive a version of the Coping Power Program aimed at severely disturbed children or to care as usual. The authors further categorized care as usual into family therapy or behavior therapy for the comparison. Problem behaviors were measured using the Parent Daily Report (PDR) and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). The CBCL was completed by both parents and teachers. Behavior scores were significantly improved, post-treatment, for the Coping Power Program group in comparison with the family therapy group, but not in comparison with the behavior therapy group. The authors note that possible limitations include differences in the number of therapy sessions across groups and small sample sizes, particularly for the comparison groups.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: None.
Zonnevylle-Bender, M., Matthys, W., van de Wiel, N. M. H., & Lochman, J. E. (2007). Preventive effects of treatment of disruptive behavior disorder in middle childhood on substance use and delinquent behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46(1), 33-39.
Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of participants: 61
Population:
Location/Institution: Utrecht, Netherlands
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Note: This study uses the same sample describe in van de Wiel, et al., 2007. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the Coping Power Program or care as usual (CU). An additional, non-randomized, comparison group of non-treated youth was recruited from high schools to complete the measures (referred to as the HC group). The youths’ self-reported attitudes towards drugs and alcohol and their use of them were measured with the CSAP Student Survey. Delinquent behavior was measured with the Delinquency Scales of the National Youth Survey. Results showed that both the Coping Power Program and CU group were comparable in rates of substance abuse and delinquency to the HC group. The Coping Power Program group also reported lower rates of smoking than the CU group. A limitation to the study was the use of self-report measures of substance use.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: Approximately 5 years
Lochman, J. E., Wells, K. C., & Lenhart, L. A. (2008). Coping Power child group program: Facilitator guide. New York, NY: Oxford.
Wells, K. C., Lochman, J. E., & Lenhart, L. A. (2008). Coping Power parent group program: Facilitator guide. New York, NY: Oxford.
Lochman, J. E., Wells, K. C., & Murray, M. (2007). The Coping Power program: Preventive intervention at the middle school transition. In P. Tolan, J. Szapocznik, & S. Sambrano (Eds.), Preventing youth substance abuse: Science-based programs for children and adolescents (pp. 185-210). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Contact name: John E. Lochman, PhD, ABPP
Affiliation/Agency: The University of Alabama
Email: jlochman@ua.edu
Phone: 205-348-7678
Fax: 205-348-8648