Coping Power Program

Scientific Rating:
1
Well-Supported by Research Evidence
See scale of 1-5
Child Welfare System Relevance Level:
Medium
See descriptions of 3 levels

About This Program

The information in this program outline is provided by the program representative and edited by the CEBC staff. Coping Power Program has been rated by the CEBC in the area of: Disruptive Behavior Treatment (Child & Adolescent).

Target Population: 8 to 14 year old children whose aggression puts them at risk for later delinquency

For children/adolescents ages: 8 – 14

For parents/caregivers of children ages: 8 – 14

Brief Description

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.

Program Goals:

The overall goals of the Coping Power Program are:

  • Goals for Children:
    • Address risk factors for delinquency, substance use, and problem behaviors at school including problems with social information processing and emotional regulation processes.
  • Goals for Parents:
    • Improve warmth, consistency, and supervision in parenting practices

Essential Components

The essential components of Coping Power Program include:

  • The Coping Power Child Component consists of 34 structured cognitive-behavioral therapy group sessions with 4-6 participants and periodic individual sessions designed to positively affect the child’s:
    • Ability to set short and long term goals
    • Organization and study skills
    • Anger management skills
    • Social skills
    • Problem-solving skills
    • Ability to resist peer pressure
    • Entry into positive peer groups
  • The Coping Power Parent Component consists of 16 structured sessions. In the sessions, the parents learn these skills:
    • Use of positive attention
    • Clear rules and expectations
    • Promotion of child study skills
    • Appropriate discipline practices
    • Parental stress management
    • Family communication and problem-solving

Child/Adolescent Services

Coping Power Program directly provides services to children/adolescents and addresses the following:

  • Aggressive, disruptive, and noncompliant child behavior

Parent/Caregiver Services

Coping Power Program directly provides services to parents/caregivers and addresses the following:

  • Parents of children with aggressive, disruptive, and noncompliant behavior

Delivery Settings

This program is typically conducted in a(n):

  • Outpatient Clinic
  • School

Homework

Coping Power Program includes a homework component:

Children and parents are given homework tasks and worksheets for some sessions.

Languages

Coping Power Program has materials available in languages other than English:

Italian, Spanish

For information on which materials are available in these languages, please check on the program's website or contact the program representative (contact information is listed at the bottom of this page).

Resources Needed to Run Program

The typical resources for implementing the 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

Minimum Provider Qualifications

Master's or PhD in psychology, counseling, social work, or related disciplines

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:
  • Nicole Powell, PhD, MPH
    University of Alabama

    phone: (205) 348-3535
Training is obtained:

Training in Tuscaloosa, and on site at agencies/schools

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

Implementation Information

Since Coping Power Program is rated on the Scientific Rating Scale, information was requested from the program representative on available pre-implementation assessments, implementation tools, and/or fidelity measures.

Show implementation information...

Pre-Implementation Materials

There are no pre-implementation materials to measure organizational or provider readiness for Coping Power Program.

Formal Support for Implementation

There is formal support available for implementation of Coping Power Program as listed below:

Technical assistance and consultation services are available.

Fidelity Measures

There are fidelity measures for Coping Power Program as listed below:

Checklists for implementation fidelity and for quality of implementation are available. Measures can be requested by contacting Nicole Powell, PhD, MPH, at npowell@ua.edu.

Implementation Guides or Manuals

There are implementation guides or manuals for Coping Power Program as listed below:

The following manuals and guides are available and provide the information stated:

  • Lochman, J. E., Wells, K. C., & Lenhart, L. (2008). Coping Power: Child group facilitators' guide. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Provides detailed implementation instructions for each intervention session.
  • Lochman, J. E., Wells, K. C., & Lenhart, L. (2008). Child group 8-copy set client workbooks New York: Oxford University Press.
    Contains worksheets designed to be used within the intervention sessions and for homework.
  • Wells, K. C., Lochman, J. E., & Lenhart, L. (2008). Coping Power: Parent group facilitator's guide. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Provides detailed implementation instructions for each intervention session.
  • Wells, K. C., Lochman, J. E., & Lenhart, L. (2008). Parent group 8-copy set of client workbooks. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Contains worksheets designed to be used within the intervention sessions and for homework.

Materials can be ordered through the Oxford University Press website or through most major booksellers.

Research on How to Implement the Program

Research has been conducted on how to implement Coping Power Program as listed below:

  • Lochman, J. E., Boxmeyer, C., Powell, N., Qu, L., Wells, K., & Windle, M. (2009). Dissemination of the Coping Power Program: Importance of intensity of counselor training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(3), 397.
  • Lochman, J. E., Powell, N. P., Boxmeyer, C. L., Qu, L., Wells, K. C., & Windle, M. (2009). Implementation of a schoolbased prevention program: Effects of counselor and school characteristics. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(5), 476.

Relevant Published, Peer-Reviewed Research

This program is rated a "1 - Well-Supported by Research Evidence" on the Scientific Rating Scale based on the published, peer-reviewed research available. The program must have at least two rigorous randomized controlled trials with one showing a sustained effect of at least 1 year. The article(s) below that reports outcomes from an RCT showing a sustained effect of at least 1 year has an asterisk (*) at the beginning of its entry. Please see the Scientific Rating Scale for more information.

Child Welfare Outcome: Child/Family Well-Being

Show relevant research...

Lochmann, J. E., FitzGerald, D. P., Gage, S. M., Kanaly, M. K., Whidby, J. M., Barry, T. D., ... McElroy, H. (2001). Effects of a social-cognitive intervention for aggressive deaf children: The Coping Power Program. Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, 35(2), 39-61.

Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of Participants: 49

Population:

  • Age — 9-16 years
  • Race/Ethnicity — 64% African American, 32% Caucasian, and 2% Hispanic
  • Gender — Not specified
  • Status — Participants were students in a residential school for the deaf.

Location/Institution: Not specified

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 Program 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 postintervention 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:

  • Age — 4th and 5th grade (approximately 8-11 years)
  • Race/Ethnicity — 38% Caucasian, 61% African American, and 1% other
  • Gender — 100% Male
  • Status — Participants were elementary 4th and 5th grade school boys.

Location/Institution: Not specified

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
This study examined the contextual social–cognitive model on which the Coping Power Program is based. 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 version of Coping Power Program, the full child-plus-parent (Coping Power Program), intervention, 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. Coping Power’s effect on delinquency, substance use, and school behavior outcomes was at least partially mediated through intervention-produced changes in child and parent variables that were targets for the intervention. 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. Limitations include small sample size, inclusion only of boys and by attrition, particularly for parents.

Length of postintervention 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:

  • Age — Fifth grade (approximately 9-11 years)
  • Race/Ethnicity — 75%-81% African American
  • Gender — 162 Boys and 83 Girls
  • Status — Participants were fifth grade students selected for aggression levels and disruptive behavior by teacher ratings.

Location/Institution: Not specified

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; the Coping Power Program, 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 include low levels of parent attendance in the intervention sessions.

Length of postintervention 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: 245

Population:

  • Age — Fifth grade (approximately 9-11 years)
  • Race/Ethnicity — 75%-81% African American
  • Gender — Not specified
  • Status — Participants were fifth grade students selected for aggression levels and disruptive behavior by teacher ratings.

Location/Institution: Not specified

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
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 Program 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. Limitations include the relatively small sample size, the lack of Time 1 assessment of parent ratings of youth substance use, and the presence of some attrition over time, which limits the representativeness of the sample and the generalizability of the findings.

Length of postintervention 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:

  • Age — 55% 4th grade (approximately 8-10 years) and 45% 5th grade (approximately 9-11 years)
  • Race/Ethnicity — 38% White, 61% African American, and 1% other
  • Gender — 100% Male
  • Status — Participants were boys screened as having at-risk factors of aggression and disruptiveness in 4th and 5th grade.

Location/Institution: Not specified

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
Participants were randomly assigned to receive a child-only version of the Coping Power Program, the full child-plus-parent version of the Coping Power Program, 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 lower levels of covert delinquency, but not overt. Self-reported substance abuse was not affected by intervention condition, but the Coping Power Program 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 postintervention 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:

  • Age — 8-13 years
  • Race/Ethnicity — Not specified
  • Gender — Not specified
  • Status — Participants were children in psychiatric outpatient clinics or mental health centers.

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. Limitations include differences in the number of therapy sessions across groups and small sample sizes, particularly for the comparison groups.

Length of postintervention 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:

  • Age — 8-13 years
  • Race/Ethnicity — Not specified
  • Gender — Not specified
  • Status — Participants were children who had been treated in psychiatric outpatient clinics or mental health centers.

Location/Institution: Utrecht, Netherlands

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
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. Limitations include the use of self-report measures of substance use.

Length of postintervention follow-up: Approximately 5 years.

Jurecska, D. D., Hamilton, E. B., & Peterson, M. A. (2011). Effectiveness of the Coping Power Program in middle-school children with disruptive behaviors and hyperactivity difficulties.  Support for Learning, 26, 168-172.

Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of Participants: 119

Population:

  • Age — 10-12 years
  • Race/Ethnicity — Not specified
  • Gender — Intervention group: 37 Males, Control Group: 35 Males
  • Status — Participants were at-risk middle-school children with hyperactivity and behavioral difficulties.

Location/Institution: Rural counties in Oregon

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
This study discusses the effectiveness of the Coping Power Program. Students were randomized to an intervention group of Coping Power Program or to a control group. Measures utilized were the Behavior Assessment Scale for Children-2 (BASC-2 SRP) and the BASC-2 TR. A subset of students from the Coping Power Program group was identified as significantly improved. A pre-intervention and postintervention measure showed that students with clinically significant hyperactivity and behavioral difficulties scores were the most sensitive to the Coping Power Program intervention. Limitations include small sample size and possible differences between the group leaders.

Length of postintervention follow-up: None.

*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.

Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of Participants: 241

Population:

  • Age — Fifth grade (approximately 9-11 years)
  • Race/Ethnicity — Article states “primarily consisted of African-American and Caucasian children, with only two Hispanic children and four of other nationalities”
  • Gender — 66.5% Male
  • Status — Participants were children in elementary school with aggressive behavior.

Location/Institution: One community in a small-sized city in the southeastern United States

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
This study uses the same sample as Lochman & Wells (2002b). This study examined children who had been assigned to the Coping Power Program or to a care-as-usual comparison condition during the fifth and sixth grade years, at the time of transition to middle school. Measures utilized were the Behavior Assessment System for Children – Teacher Rating Scale (BASC-TRS), the Teacher Report of Reactive and Proactive Aggression, and the Antisocial Process Screening Device – Teacher Form (APSD-T). Results indicated indicate that the Coping Power Program had effects through the 3 years after the end of intervention on reductions in children’s aggressive behavior and academic behavior problems, children’s expectations that aggression would lead to positive outcomes, and parents’ lack of supportiveness with their children. There was limited support for the hypothesis that intervention effects would be greater in less problematic neighborhoods. Limitations include generalizability due to the limited population and that the analyses conducted test patterns of change in outcome variables across time, and does not test whether the intervention and control groups significantly differ at each specific time period after the intervention.

Length of postintervention follow-up: 3 years.

The following studies were not included in rating Coping Power Program on the Scientific Rating Scale...

Lochman, J. E., Baden, R. E., Boxmeyer, C. L., Powell, N. P., Qu, L., Salekin, K. L., & Windle, M. (2014). Does a booster intervention augment the preventive effects of an abbreviated version of the Coping Power Program for aggressive children? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42(3), 367-381.

The present study examines the effect of a child-oriented booster preventive intervention with children who had previously received an abbreviated version (24 child sessions, 10 parent sessions) of the Coping Power Program. Participants were screened as having moderate to high levels of aggressive behavior in 4th grade then randomly assigned to one of three groups: 1) abbreviated Coping Power Program in 5th grade, 2) abbreviated Coping Power Program in 5th grade plus a Booster condition in 6th grade, or 3) services as usual. Measures utilized were the Behavior Assessment System for Children – Teacher Rating Scale (BASC-TRS), the teacher Report of Reactive and Proactive Aggression, and the Antisocial Process Screening Device – Teacher Form (APSD-T). Results indicated that the abbreviated Coping Power Program (one third shorter than the full intervention) had long-term effects in reducing children’s externalizing problem behaviors, proactive and reactive aggression, impulsivity traits and callous-unemotional traits. The Booster intervention did not augment these prevention effects. Limitations include the relatively limited scope and focus of the booster component and difficulty obtaining teacher assessments during the later follow-up years. Note the paper was not used in the rating of this program due to using an abbreviated version of the program in the study.

References

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 Information

Name: Nicole Powell, PhD, MPH
Agency/Affiliation: The University of Alabama
Email:
Phone: (205) 348-3535
Fax: (205) 348-8648

Date Research Evidence Last Reviewed by CEBC: December 2015

Date Program Content Last Reviewed by Program Staff: April 2014

Date Program Originally Loaded onto CEBC: May 2009