Guiding Good Choices® (GGC)

Scientific Rating:
3
Promising 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. Guiding Good Choices® (GGC) has been rated by the CEBC in the area of: Parent Training Programs that Address Behavior Problems in Children and Adolescents.

Target Population: Parents of adolescents and young teens

For parents/caregivers of children ages: 9 – 14

Brief Description

GGC is a designed to help parents develop positive parenting and family management skills. The goal of GGC is to prevent substance abuse and other risky behaviors among teens by improving family communication and family bonding which has been shown to be critically important in reducing or inhibiting adolescent participation in antisocial behaviors.

During the course of GCC, parents learn to set clear family guidelines on drugs, as well as learn and practice skills to strengthen family bonds, help their children develop healthy behaviors, and increase children's involvement in the family.

Program Goals:

The goals of Guiding Good Choices® (GGC) are:

  • Prevent substance abuse among teens
  • Prevent other risky behaviors among teens
  • Improve family communication
  • Improve family bonding

Essential Components

The essential components of the Guiding Good Choices® (GGC) program include:

  • 5 parent group workshops, each 2-hours in length that cover the following topics:
    • Session 1 - Getting Started: How to Prevent Drug Use in Your Family - Parents learn about the nature and extent of the drug problem among teenagers in general, and decide for themselves how they want to prevent problems in their own family. Parents also learn about risk and protective factors through an interactive activity.
    • Session 2 - Setting Guidelines: How to Develop Healthy Beliefs and Clear Standards - Parents develop clear family guidelines and expectations for behavior. Through small group discussions, parents explore how they feel about situations related to substance abuse, such as what they would do if their child were hanging around with someone who smokes, or whether their child should be allowed to drink alcohol on special occasions.
    • Session 3 - Avoiding Trouble: How to Say No to Drugs - Both children and parents are invited to this session. They learn and practice refusal skills that children can use to stay out of trouble and keep their friends while still having fun.
    • Session 4 - Managing Conflict: How to Control and Express Your Anger Constructively - Parents learn to manage family conflict in a way that maintains and strengthens bonds with their children.
    • Session 5 - Involving Everyone: How to Strengthen Family Bonds - Parents learn ways to strengthen family bonds and increase children's involvement with the family during the teen years. Parents also learn how to create a parent support network.
  • Each workshop leader uses the Guiding Good Choices Workshop Leader’s Guide to deliver each workshop session
  • The Workshop Leader’s Guide provides detailed guidance and instructions for group activities for each workshop session, and a DVD containing video clips depicting common parenting scenarios that are viewed and discussed during each session.
  • Each participating parent/couple receives a copy of the Guiding Good Choices Family Guide, providing family activities, skill-building exercises, tips on positive parenting, and more.

Parent/Caregiver Services

Guiding Good Choices® (GGC) directly provides services to parents/caregivers and addresses the following:

  • Family history of the problem behavior, management problems, or conflict; favorable parental attitudes and involvement in the problem behavior; or caregivers of children/adolescents with rebelliousness, favorable attitudes toward and/or friends who engage in problem behaviors (e.g., substance abuse, delinquency, teen pregnancy, violence, depression, anxiety, high school dropout)

Delivery Settings

This program is typically conducted in a(n):

  • Community Agency
  • School

Homework

Guiding Good Choices® (GGC) includes a homework component:

Parents practice communication and family management skills between sessions and discuss their experiences at the following session.

Languages

Guiding Good Choices® (GGC) 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:

TV/monitor or LCD projector; connected DVD player or computer with DVD drive; connected computer with CD drive and MS PowerPoint installed; meeting room with space for group, typically 8-12 parents

Minimum Provider Qualifications

Teachers, parent educators, or anyone who is comfortable facilitating parents' education can teach GGC

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:

Training is available but not required. Training events are primarily onsite. Occasional regional trainings are arranged when logistics allow.

Number of days/hours:

Standard training event lasts 3 days; 6 hours per day

Implementation Information

Since Guiding Good Choices® (GGC) 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 Guiding Good Choices® (GGC).

Formal Support for Implementation

The program representative did not provide information about formal support for implementation of Guiding Good Choices® (GGC).

Fidelity Measures

There are fidelity measures for Guiding Good Choices® (GGC) as listed below:

The Guiding Good Choices Workshop Leader’s Guide contains a fidelity tool called the Workshop Leader Rating Sheets. They are to be completed by each workshop leader at the end of each session. The Ratings Sheets allow workshop leaders to assess how well each session’s objectives were covered, the level of parent participation, etc.

Implementation Guides or Manuals

There are implementation guides or manuals for Guiding Good Choices® (GGC) as listed below:

Guiding Good Choices Program Kits, Workshop Leader’s Guides and Family Guides are available for purchase from Channing Bete Company: http://shop.channing-bete.com/onlinestore/search.html?&key=Guiding+Good+Choices

Research on How to Implement the Program

Research has not been conducted on how to implement Guiding Good Choices® (GGC).

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 Outcome: Child/Family Well-Being

Show relevant research...

*Mason, W. A., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., Spoth, R. L., & Redmond, C. (2007). Influence of a family-focused substance use preventive intervention on growth in adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(3), 541-564. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00534.x

Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of Participants: 429

Population:

  • Age — Children: Mean=11.3 year, Adults: Mean=37-40 years
  • Race/Ethnicity — Children: Not specified; Adults: Not specified
  • Gender — Children: 52% Female, Adults: Not specified
  • Status — Participants were parents and their children in 6th thru 12th grade.

Location/Institution: 33 rural schools in 19 contiguous counties in a Midwestern state

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
This article examined the effects of Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices] on self-reported adolescent depressive symptoms 6 years after the PDFY intervention was completed. Schools were randomized by block design, in which schools were blocked on enrollment and on the proportion of lower income students. 11 schools each were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a minimal-contact control condition, the PDFY condition, and the Iowa Strengthening Families Program condition which was not examined in this study. Measures utilized include the Child Behavior Checklist—Youth Self-Report (CBCL-YSR) and self-reported adolescent poly-substance use questionnaire. Results indicate in comparison to the control group, PDFY reduced the rate of increase in depressive symptoms during adolescence. Additionally, mediation of PDFY’s effect on depressive symptoms through reduced poly-substance use was tested; the indirect effect was only marginally significant for participants in the control group. Limitations include generalizability of the findings to clinical populations, ethnic minority families and to families living in suburban and urban setting, and reliance on self-reported measures.

Length of postintervention follow-up: 6 years.

The following studies were not included in rating GGC on the Scientific Rating Scale...

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Haggerty, K., & Ward, T. (1995). A controlled parenting skills outcome study examining individual differences and attendance effects. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 449-464. doi:10.2307/353698

This article reports the results of the efficacy of Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices] on family-skills-focused interventions in preventing juvenile substance abuse and conduct problems. Participants were randomly assigned to a PDFY group or a wait-listed control group. Families in the wait-list control group were offered the PDFY program following completion of posttesting. Measures utilized include the written questionnaires and self-reported adolescent poly-substance use. Results indicate that the program increased proactive communication between parents and children as compared to participants in the control group. Mothers in the PDFY group exhibited significantly more proactive communication following the intervention than did control mothers. Fathers in the PDFY group exhibited significantly more proactive communication in interactions with their children in the problem-solving task than did control fathers following the intervention. Limitations include lack of reliable measures and lack of follow-up. Note: This article was not used in the rating process since one of the criteria on the Scientific Rating Scale is “Outcome measures must be reliable and valid, and administered consistently and accurately across all subjects.”

Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Spoth, R., Haggerty, K., & Zhu, K. (1997). Effects of a preventive parent training intervention on observed family interactions: Proximal outcomes from Preparing for the Drug Free Years. Journal of Community Psychology, 25(3), 277-292. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199707)25:43.0.CO;2-R

This article uses information from Spoth et al. (1995). This article reports the results of an experimental test of the effects of Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices] on targeted parental behaviors. Participants were randomly assigned to a PDFY group or a wait-listed control group that started after the PDFY group finished the intervention. Families in the wait-list control group were offered the PDFY program following completion of posttesting. Measures utilized include the Family Interaction Scales. Results indicate that the program increased proactive communication between parents and children as compared to participants in the control group. Mothers in the PDFY group exhibited significantly more proactive communication following the intervention than did control mothers. At the end of the PDFY intervention, fathers in the PDFY condition exhibited significantly more proactive communication in interactions with their children in the problem-solving task than did control fathers. Limitations reliance on self-reported measures and lack of follow-up.

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (1998). Direct and indirect latent-variable parenting outcomes of two universal family-focused preventive interventions: Extending a public health-oriented research base. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 385-399. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.385

This randomized controlled trial examined Preparing for the Drug-Free Years Program (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices], the Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP), and a minimal-contact control condition on parenting behaviors to prevent substance and alcohol abuse in adolescents. Schools were randomized by block design, in which schools were blocked on enrollment and on the proportion of lower income students. 11 schools each were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions. Measures utilized include self-report and observational portions of the in-home. Results indicate both PDFY and ISFP intervention groups continued to have a statistically significant effect on parenting behaviors. The parenting behaviors targeted directly by the intervention influence the more global parenting practices of general child management and parent-child affective quality compared to the control group. Because differences in the content of the PDFY and ISFP warranted the application of different measurement models, the interventions were not compared directly. Limitations include no significant different in effect between PDFY and ISFP, generalizability of the findings to ethnic minority families and to families living in suburban and urban setting, and lack of reliable and valid measures. Note: This article was not used in the rating process since one of the criteria on the Scientific Rating Scale is “Outcome measures must be reliable and valid, and administered consistently and accurately across all subjects.”

Redmond, C., Spoth, R., Shin, C., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). Modeling long-term parent outcomes of two universal family-focused preventive interventions: One-year follow-up results. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(6), 975-984. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.6.975

The work described herein extends the work of Spoth et al. (1998) by examining their intervention-effects model for parenting outcomes with data collected from respondents 1 year following the posttest used in the earlier study. The interventions examined are Preparing for the Drug-Free Years Program (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices], the Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP), and a minimal-contact control condition. Schools were randomized by block design, in which schools were blocked on enrollment and on the proportion of lower income students. 11 schools each were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Measures utilized include parallel social development model measures, parents’ norms against substance use measures, and a measure of proactive family management. Results indicate both PDFY and ISFP intervention groups continued to have a statistically significant effect on parenting behaviors, which, in turn, had significant effects on both parent child affective quality and general child management as compared to the control group. Limitations include no significant different in effect between interventions, generalizability of the findings to ethnic minority families and to families living in suburban and urban setting, and lack of reliable and valid measures. Note: This article was not used in the rating process since one of the criteria on the Scientific Rating Scale is “Outcome measures must be reliable and valid, and administered consistently and accurately across all subjects.”

Park, J., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., Duncan, S. C., & Spoth, R. (2000). Effects of the "Preparing for the Drug Free Years" curriculum on growth in alcohol use and risk for alcohol use in early adolescence. Prevention Science, 1(3), 125-138. doi:10.1023/A:1010021205638

This article uses information from previous study of Spoth et al. (1998).This article examined the effects of Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices], the Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP), and a minimal-contact control condition on enhance growth in or maintenance of family norms against alcohol and other drug use and proactive family management, and to reduce or curb the growth in family conflict and that it would improve or help to maintain adolescents’ likelihood of resisting antisocial influence from peers as well as reduce or curb the growth in alcohol use during early adolescence. Schools were randomized by block design, in which schools were blocked on enrollment and on the proportion of lower income students. 11 schools each were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Measures utilized include parallel social development model measures, parents’ norms against substance use measures, and a measure of proactive family management. Results indicate PDFY directly reduced the growth in adolescent alcohol use from age 12 to age 15 1/2 as compared to the control group. Additionally, the intervention significantly strengthened parental norms against alcohol and other drug use by adolescents over time and also helped to maintain proactive family management practices over time, compared to a slight decline in family management practices among control families. No significant PDFY effects were found on growth in family conflict or refusal skills over the period from age 11 to age 14. Limitations include generalizability of the findings to ethnic minority families and to families living in suburban and urban setting, and lack of reliable and valid measures. Note: This article was not used in the rating process since one of the criteria on the Scientific Rating Scale is “Outcome measures must be reliable and valid, and administered consistently and accurately across all subjects.”

Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (2001). Preparing for the Drug Free Years: Session-specific effects of a universal parent-training intervention with rural families. Journal of Drug Education, 31(1), 47-68. doi:10.2190/3KP9-V42V-V38L-6G0Y

This article uses a portion of a population from a previous study of Spoth et al. (1998).This article examined the effects of Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices] on specific parenting behaviors targeted by individual program sessions (drug and alcohol abuse, family conflict, strengthening family bonds). Families were randomized to either PDFY or a waitlist control group. Measures utilized included items from self-administered surveys assessing the social development constructs targeted in the PDFY curriculum. Results indicate as compared to those in the control group, participants in PDFY reported that they had significantly more positive involvement with their child and made more use of positive rewards in parenting. Participants in the PDFY group also reported setting clearer standards regarding substance use and conflict among family members. PDFY participants also reported that their child would be less likely to refuse influences to drugs. Limitations include generalizability of the findings to ethnic minority families and to families living in suburban and urban setting, lack of reliable and valid measures, and lack of follow-up. Note: This article was not used in the rating process since one of the criteria on the Scientific Rating Scale is “Outcome measures must be reliable and valid, and administered consistently and accurately across all subjects.”

Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2001). Randomized trial of brief family interventions for general populations: Adolescent substance use outcomes 4 years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(4), 627-642. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.69.4.627

This article uses information from previous study of Spoth et al. (1998). The interventions examined are Preparing for the Drug-Free Years Program (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices], the Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP), and a minimal-contact control condition on preventing substance use in adolescents. Schools were randomized by block design, in which schools were blocked on enrollment and on the proportion of lower income students. 11 schools each were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Measures utilized include initiation and current use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. Results indicate both PDFY and ISFP intervention groups had significant differences in initiation and current use as compared to the control group. Limitations include no significant different in effect between interventions, generalizability of the findings to ethnic minority families and to families living in suburban and urban setting, and lack of reliable and valid measures. Note: This article was not used in the rating process since one of the criteria on the Scientific Rating Scale is “Outcome measures must be reliable and valid, and administered consistently and accurately across all subjects.”

Mason, W. A., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., & Spoth, R. L. (2003). Reducing adolescents' growth in substance use and delinquency: Randomized trial effects of a preventive parent-training intervention. Prevention Science, 4(3), 203-212. doi:10.1023/A:1024653923780

This article uses information from previous study of Spoth et al. (1998).This article examined the effects of Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices] on the relationship between growth in adolescent substance use and delinquency. Schools were randomized by block design, in which schools were blocked on enrollment and on the proportion of lower income students. 11 schools each were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a minimal-contact control condition, the PDFY condition, and the Iowa Strengthening Families Program condition, an intervention condition that was not examined in this study. Measures utilized include self-reported adolescent poly-substance use. Results showed that adolescents assigned to the PDFY intervention condition had a slower rate of linear increase over time in both substance use and delinquency compared with adolescents assigned to the control condition. Limitations include lack of reliable and valid measures, generalizability of the findings limited because of the specific substance use and delinquency patterns, rural residence, predominantly White composition of the sample. Note: This article was not used in the rating process since one of the criteria on the Scientific Rating Scale is “Outcome measures must be reliable and valid, and administered consistently and accurately across all subjects.”

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Shin, C., & Azevedo, K. (2004). Brief family intervention effects on adolescent substance initiation: School-level curvilinear growth curve analyses 6 years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(3), 535-542. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.535

This article uses information from previous study of Spoth et al. (1998). The interventions examined are Preparing for the Drug-Free Years Program (PDFY) [now called Guiding Good Choices], the Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP), and a minimal-contact control condition on trajectories of substance initiation over a period of 6 years following a baseline assessment. Schools were randomized by block design, in which schools were blocked on enrollment and on the proportion of lower income students. 11 schools each were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Measures utilized included questionnaire on alcohol and tobacco use. Results indicate that both family-focused interventions slowed the growth in initiation of some substances over a 6-year period following the baseline assessment, during which the mean age of participants increased from 11.8 years to 18.2 years as compared to the control group. A greater number of delayed growth effects were in evidence for the ISFP, with PDFY effects shown only on tobacco use growth rates as compared to the control group. Limitations include no significant different in effect between interventions, generalizability of the findings to ethnic minority families and to families living in suburban and urban setting, and lack of reliable and valid measures. Note: This article was not used in the rating process since one of the criteria on the Scientific Rating Scale is “Outcome measures must be reliable and valid, and administered consistently and accurately across all subjects.”

References

No reference materials are currently available for Guiding Good Choices® (GGC).

Contact Information

Name: Customer Service
Agency/Affiliation: Channing Bete Company, Inc.
Website: www.channing-bete.com/ggc
Email:
Phone: (187) 789-6853 x2
Fax: (180) 049-9646 x4

Date Research Evidence Last Reviewed by CEBC: April 2016

Date Program Content Last Reviewed by Program Staff: March 2016

Date Program Originally Loaded onto CEBC: June 2016