Alternatives for Families: A Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (AF-CBT)

Scientific Rating:
3
See scale of 1-5
Child Welfare Relevance Level:
High

See descriptions of 3 levels

Brief Description

The information in this program outline is provided by the program representative and edited by the CEBC staff. The Alternatives for Families: A Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (AF-CBT) program has been rated by the CEBC in the area of: Trauma Treatment (Child & Adolescent).

  • Types of Maltreatment: Physical Abuse, Emotional Abuse
  • Target Population: Caregivers who are aggressive and physically, emotionally, or verbally abuse their children and their children who experience behavioral dysfunction, especially aggression, as a result of the abuse, as well as high conflict families who are at-risk for physical abuse/aggression.

AF-CBT (originally named Abuse-Focused Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy) is a treatment based on principles derived from learning and behavioral theory, family systems, cognitive therapy, developmental victimology, and the psychology of aggression. It integrates specific techniques to target school-aged abused children, their caregivers, and the larger family system. Through training in specific intrapersonal and interpersonal skills, AF-CBT seeks to promote the expression of appropriate/pro-social behavior and discourage the use of aggressive or hostile behavior.

AF-CBT addresses both the key risks for and clinical consequences of exposure to family aggression, conflict, and coercion. The key risks include coercive parenting practices, anger hyperarousal, negative child attributions, and family conflict. The clinical consequences include child aggression, poor interpersonal skills/functioning, and emotional reactivity. In general, it attempts to address both clinical (well-being) and safety concerns by integrating training in general psychological skills and, if relevant, treatment focusing upon a specific aggressive, abusive, or traumatic experience.

AF-CBT has primarily been used with children and adolescents (ages 5-16). Treatment is not specifically designed for any one ethnic/racial group. It has been used extensively with urban African-American families, but has more recently been applied with Latino, South Asian, and Caribbean-American families. Most of the cases come from urban, inner-city, and low-income families (e.g., Pittsburgh, New York City, Baltimore, Toronto, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles), but there are more recent applications in rural areas across several states (e.g., Michigan, New Hampshire, Oregon). Common sources of referral include child welfare/child protective services caseworkers, mental health agencies, child advocacy centers, family support centers, and self-referral.

The goals of AF-CBT are to:

  • Reduce conflict and increase cohesion in family.
  • Reduce use of coercion (hostility, anger, verbal aggression, threats) by caregiver and, as relevant, other family members.
  • Reduce use of physical force (aggressive behavior) by caregiver and, as relevant, other family members.
  • Reduce child physical abuse risk or recidivism (prevention of child welfare system involvement or repeated reports/allegations).
  • Improve level of child’s safety/welfare and, as relevant, family functioning.

Essential Components

  • Educate individuals/family about relevance of the Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) model and physical abuse.
  • Establish agreement with family to refrain from using physical force and to discuss any incidents involving the use of force within the family.
  • Review the child's exposure to emotional abuse in the family and provide education about the parameters of abusive experiences (causes, characteristics, and consequences) in order to help child and caregiver better understand the context in which they occurred.
  • Identify and address cognitive contributors to abusive behavior in caregivers (i.e., misattributions, high expectations, etc.) and/or their consequences in children (i.e., views supportive of aggression, self-blame, etc.) that could maintain any physically abusive or aggressive behavior.
  • Teach affect management skills.
  • Teach parents behavioral strategies to reinforce and punish behavior as alternatives to physical discipline.
  • Teach pro-social communication and problem-solving skills to the family and help them to establish them as everyday routines.

AF-CBT is delivered across three treatment phases, as listed below. In general, the content of first and second phases is administered in individual sessions to caregivers and children/adolescents, whereas the content of the third phase is administered in joint caregiver-child sessions. However, caregivers may be seen occasionally for a brief “check-in” after a child session.

Phase 1: Engagement and Psychoeducation

  • Orientation to Treatment
  • Parental Engagement and Safety Planning
  • Psychoeducation about and Monitoring of Force/Discipline
  • Child Discussion/Disclosure of Positive/Negative Experiences
  • Consideration of Clarification/Preparation

Phase 2: Individual Skill-Building (Skills Training)

  • Cognitive Processing and Coping
  • Emotion Regulation: Controlling Your Anger and Anxiety
  • Assertion/Social Skills/ Support Plans
  • Behavior Management -- Promoting Positive Behavior and Managing Misbehavior (Discipline)

Phase 3: Family Applications and Routines

  • Clarification Process
  • Communication Skills
  • Problem-Solving Skills
  • Developing Family Routines

This is a suggested sequence for conducting the treatment, which generally proceeds from teaching intrapersonal (e.g., cognitive, affective) skills first, followed by interpersonal skills (e.g., behavioral). Of course, topics/sessions can be flexibly delivered (adapted, abbreviated, or repeated) based on the family’s progress and/or treatment needs/goals in each phase. Although AF-CBT has primarily been used in outpatient and home settings, the treatment has been more recently delivered in inpatient and residential settings when there is some ongoing or potential contact between the caregiver and the child.

Child Component

Alternatives for Families: A Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (AF-CBT) was designed with a child component that addresses the following presenting problems and symptoms:

  • Emotional and cognitive effects of abuse or exposure to aggression/conflict (e.g., anger/anxiety, misattributions), aggression/behavioral dysfunction, and poor social/interpersonal skills.

Age range: 6 – 15

Developmental Delays:

This program was not developed for children with developmental delays, and has not been tested for children with developmental delays.

Parent / Caregiver Component

Alternatives for Families: A Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (AF-CBT) was designed with a parent/caregiver component that addresses the following presenting problems and symptoms:

  • Limited motivation for or ambivalence about treatment, heightened family stress, anger/anxiety management, attributional biases, limited effectiveness of child management and challenging child behaviors, and inadequate parent-child communication and problem-solving skills.

Group Format

Alternatives for Families: A Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (AF-CBT) was not designed to be conducted in a group setting, and has not been tested for use in a group setting.

Delivery Settings

This program is typically conducted in a(n):

  • Adoptive Home
  • Birth Family Home
  • Hospital
  • Outpatient Clinic
  • Residential Care Facility

Homework

Alternatives for Families: A Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (AF-CBT) includes a homework component:

Children and caregivers are requested to complete tailored home practice assignments designed to facilitate skills acquisition and to provide feedback regarding the utility of specific treatment methods.

Languages

Alternatives for Families: A Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (AF-CBT) does not have materials available in a language other than English.

Resources Needed to Run Program

The typical resources for implementing the program are:

A confidential space, trained practitioner, documents for assessment, treatment, and progress records, and optional audio or video-taping equipment to facilitate case supervision.

Minimum Provider Qualifications

Mental health practitioners with:

  • General training in behavioral or cognitive-behavioral techniques.
  • An understanding of the clinical characteristics and treatment course of child physical abuse.
  • Formal didactic training in the program model/methods.
  • 1-2 completed pilot treatment cases for which ongoing consultation/feedback was obtained.

It is strongly recommended that practitioners interested in this approach have at least a Master's degree in a field relevant to psychology/counseling, however it is recognized that some practitioners with a BA degree and considerable clinical experience have successfully applied this model in various settings.

Education and Training Resources

There is a manual that describes how to implement this program, and there is training available for this program.

Training Contact:
Training is obtained:

AF-CBT’s Learning Collaborative approach to training can be provided on a flexible basis (i.e., in a local or individual agency or in context of a regional program or training institute.)

Number of days/hours:

Trainings are tailored to the needs/backgrounds of the practitioner or program, but often include the following components:

  • Initial didactic workshop training (3 days).
  • Follow-up case consultation calls during “action plan” periods (6-12 months).
  • Review of session performance samples for integrity/competency.
  • Booster re-training and advanced case review (1 day).
  • Review of community metrics and progress report.

Relevant Published, Peer-Reviewed Research

This program is rated a "3 - Promising Research Evidence" on the Scientific Rating Scale based on the published, peer-reviewed research available. The practice must have at least one study utilizing some form of control (e.g., untreated group, placebo group, matched wait list study) establishing the practice's benefit over the placebo, or found it to be comparable to or better than an appropriate comparison practice. Please see the Scientific Rating Scale for more information.

Child Welfare Outcomes: Safety and Child/Family Well-Being

Show relevant research...

Kolko, D. J. (1996a). Individual cognitive behavioral treatment and family therapy for physically abused children and their offending parents: A comparison of clinical outcomes. Child Maltreatment, 1(4), 322-342.

Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of Participants: 47

Population:

  • Age range — Mean age of child in family was 8.6 years
  • Race/Ethnicity — 47% African American, 47% Caucasian, and 6% biracial
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Families referred by CPS or other agency for physical abuse.

Location / Institution: Pennsylvania

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
Families were randomly assigned to the Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) or Family Therapy (FT) conditions. There was also a non-random group who received routine community services (RCS). Parents and children completed the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) and the Weekly Report of Abuse Indicators (WRAI) to evaluate high risk parental behaviors, and parents completed the Child Abuse Potential Inventory. Symptoms and problems relating to abuse were assessed using a subset of items from the Sexual Abuse Fear Evaluation (SAFE), the Children’s Attributions and Perceptions Scale (CAPS), the Youth Self Report (YSR) form of the Children’s Behavior Checklist for Ages 4-18, the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI), and Children’s Hostility Inventory. Research associates completed the Global Assessment Scale (GAS) for children. Parent dysfunction, adjustment and parenting attitudes were assessed with the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), a subset of the Child Rearing Interview (CRI), Parenting Scale (PS), and Parent Opinion Questionnaire (POQ). Finally, children and parents completed the Family Environment Scale (FES) and the Family Assessment Device (FAD) to assess family functioning. Assessments were taken pre and post treatment and at 3-month and 1-year follow-ups. Results showed improvement over RCS families for both the CBT and Family Therapy conditions in parent-to-child violence, child internalizing and externalizing problems, and parental depression. More RCS families had a recurrence of abuse, although the difference was not significant. All three groups showed overall improvement over time.

Length of post-intervention follow-up: 1 year.

Kolko, D. J. (1996b). Clinical monitoring of treatment course in child physical abuse: Psychometric characteristics and treatment comparisons. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20(1), 23-43.

Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of Participants: 38 children and their families

Population:

  • Age range — Average age of child in family was 8.6 years
  • Race/Ethnicity — 50% Caucasian, 42% African American, and 8% biracial
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Referred by CPS, caseworker, other agency or self-referred

Location / Institution: Pennsylvania

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
Note: The participants in this study are a subsample from the group used in Kolko, 1996a. Families were randomly assigned to receive either Cognitive Behavioral treatment (CBT) or Family Therapy (FT). At pre-treatment assessment children and parents completed the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) and the Family Environment Scale (FES). Parents completed the Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAP), the Parenting Scale (PS), and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Children and parents reported on potential abuse indicators, including anger, physical discipline, and injuries, prior to each treatment session. Researchers found a moderate to high degree of correspondence between child and parent reports. Levels of parental anger and physical discipline improved from early to late treatment, with CBT parents showing greater improvement. Limitations include small sample size and the use of self-report measures.

Length of post-intervention follow-up: None.

Kolko, D. J., Iselin, A. M., & Gully, K. (2011). Evaluation of the Sustainability and Clinical Outcome of Alternatives for Families: A Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (AF-CBT) in a Child Protection Center. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(2), 105-116.

Type of Study: One group pre-post test
Number of Participants: 52 families

Population:

  • Age range — Families with children 3 to 17 years. Mean age of child in family was 9.1 years
  • Race/Ethnicity — 88.6% Caucasian, 3.8% Asian, 3.8% multiracial, 1.9% African-American, and 1.9% Native American
  • Gender — 51.9% male and 48.1% female
  • Status — Families receiving therapeutic services from seven therapists in a child protection program located in the Western United States.

Location / Institution: Not specified – Western United States

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
Seven practitioners participated in a year-long Learning Collaborative in AF-CBT and in similar training programs for four other EBTs. The agency’s routine data collection system was used to document the clinical and adjustment outcomes of 52 families presenting with a physically abused child who received their services between two and five years after the AF-CBT training had ended. Measures included the Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 6-18, Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children, and Child Sexual Behavior Inventory, as well as measures of the use of all five EBTs which documented their frequency, internal consistency, and intercorrelations. Controlling for the unique content of the other four EBTs, the amount of AF-CBT Abuse-specific content delivered was related to improvements on standardized parent rating scales (i.e., child externalizing behavior, anger, anxiety, social competence) and both parent and clinician ratings of the child’s adjustment at discharge (i.e., child more safe, less scared/sad, more appropriate with peers). The amount of AF-CBT General content was related to a few discharge ratings (e.g., better child prognosis, helpfulness to parents).

Length of post-intervention follow-up: None.

References

Kolko, D. J. (2002). Child physical abuse. In J. E. B. Myers, L. Berliner, J. Briere, C. T. Hendrix, C. Jenny, & T. Reid (Eds.), APSAC handbook of child maltreatment (Second ed., pp. 21-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kolko, D. J., & Swenson, C. C. (2002). Assessing and treating physically abused children and their families: A cognitive behavioral approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kolko, D. (1996a). Individual cognitive behavioral treatment and family therapy for physically abused children and their offending parents: A comparison of clinical outcomes. Child Maltreatment, 1(4), 322-342.

Contact Information

Name: David J. Kolko, PhD
Agency/Affiliation: University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine
Website: www.afcbt.org
Email:
Phone: (412) 246-5888
Fax: (412) 246-5341

Date Reviewed: February 2012 (originally reviewed in May 2006)