Home  «  Program  «  Coping Power Program  « 

Coping Power Program

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

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 Coping Power Program has been rated by the CEBC in the area of: Disruptive Behavior Treatment (Child & Adolescent).

  • Types of Maltreatment: Does not target any specific kind of maltreatment
  • Target Population: 8 to 14 year old children whose aggression puts them at risk for later delinquency.

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.

Essential Components

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:

  • 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 Component

Coping Power Program was designed with a child component that addresses the following presenting problems and symptoms:

  • Aggressive, disruptive and noncompliant child behavior.

Age range: 8 – 14

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

Coping Power Program was designed with a parent/caregiver component that addresses the following presenting problems and symptoms:

  • Parent of child with anti-social tendencies.

Group Format

Coping Power Program was designed to be conducted in a group setting, and has been tested for use in a group setting.

Recommended group size:

4-6 children.

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.

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 a language other than English:

Spanish

For information on which materials are available in this language, 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:
  • John E. Lochman, PhD, ABPP
    University of Alabama

    phone: (205) 348-7678
Training is obtained:

Trainings 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 highly 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 Assessments

To be given to organizations or providers in order to measure organizational or individual readiness:

The Coping Power Program has several measures of organizational climate and individual characteristics that are utilized with organizations who request them. The measures have been used in research trials as well. A set of questions is available on the website, www.copingpower.com, for individuals to leave information about their organization and interest in Coping Power training or materials.

Implementation Tools — for the program (e.g., implementation guides or manuals)

Facilitator's guides and client workbooks for the Coping Power Program have recently been published by Oxford University Press. They are available through the publisher's website or through sites such as www.amazon.com.

  • Lochman, J. E., Wells, K. C., & Lenhart, L. (2008). Coping Power: Child group facilitators' guide. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Lochman, J. E., Wells, K. C., & Lenhart, L. (2008). Child group 8-copy set client workbooks. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Wells, K. C., Lochman, J. E., & Lenhart, L. (2008). Coping Power: Parent group facilitator's guide. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Wells, K. C., Lochman, J. E., & Lenhart, L. (2008). Parent group 8-copy set of client workbooks. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fidelity Measures

Two sets of fidelity measures are used by the Coping Power Program. One is used to track the extent to which the objectives in each child and parent session are completed. The second is a rating scale which assesses quality of implementation of each session. For further information on these measures please contact:

  • Caroline Lewczyk Boxmeyer, PhD
    Research Psychologist
    The Center for the Prevention of Youth Behavior Problems
    email: boxmeyer@ua.edu
    phone: 205-348-4252

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 practice must have at least two rigorous randomized controlled trials with one showing a sustained effect of at least 1 year. Please see the Scientific Rating Scale for more information.

Child Welfare Outcome: Child/Family Well-Being

Show relevant research...

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:

  • Age range — 9-16 years
  • Race/Ethnicity — 64% African American, 32% Caucasian, 2% Hispanic
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Students in a residential school for the deaf.

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:

  • Age range — 4th and 5th grade boys
  • Race/Ethnicity — 38% Caucasian, 61% African American, 1% other
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Elementary 4th and 5th grade school boys.

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:

  • Age range — Not Specified
  • Race/Ethnicity — 75%-81% African American students across conditions
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — 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; 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:

  • Age range — Not Specified
  • Race/Ethnicity — 75%-81% African American students across conditions.
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Fifth grade students selected for aggression levels and disruptive behavior by teacher ratings.

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:

  • Age range — 55% 4th grade, 45% 5th grade
  • Race/Ethnicity — 38% White, 61% African American, 1% other.
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Boys screened as at-risk factors of aggression and disruptiveness in 4th and 5th grade.

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 lower 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:

  • Age range — 8-13 years
  • Race/Ethnicity — Not Specified
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — 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. 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:

  • Age range — 8-13
  • Race/Ethnicity — Not Specified
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — 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)
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.

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: John E. Lochman, PhD, ABPP
Agency/Affiliation: The University of Alabama
Email:
Phone: (205) 348-7678
Fax: (205) 348-8648

Date Reviewed: May 2009