School Based Interventions for Students With Behavior Problems Review

• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts
• PMC2246021

Am J Prev Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 Aug 1.

Published in concluding edited form as:

PMCID: PMC2246021

NIHMSID: NIHMS28281

School-Based Interventions for Aggressive and Disruptive Behavior: Update of a Meta-Analysis

Sandra Jo Wilson

¹ Heart for Evaluation Research and Methodology, Vanderbilt Plant for Public Policy Studies, Vanderbilt Academy, Nashville, Tennessee

Mark Due west. Lipsey

¹ Center for Evaluation Enquiry and Methodology, Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee

Abstract

Background

Research about the effectiveness of school-based psychosocial prevention programs for reducing aggressive and disruptive behavior was synthesized using meta-analysis. This work updated previous work by the authors and further investigated which program and student characteristics were associated with the nearly positive outcomes.

Methods

Two hundred 40-nine experimental and quasi-experimental studies of school-based programs with outcomes representing ambitious and/or confusing behavior were obtained. Effect sizes and study characteristics were coded from these studies and analyzed.

Results

Positive overall intervention effects were constitute on aggressive and disruptive behavior and other relevant outcomes. The most common and almost constructive approaches were universal programs and targeted programs for selected/indicated children. The mean result sizes for these types of programs stand for a decrease in aggressive/disruptive behavior that is likely to be of practical significance to schools. Multi-component comprehensive programs did non evidence pregnant furnishings and those for special schools or classrooms were marginal. Dissimilar treatment modalities (e.one thousand., behavioral, cerebral, social skills) produced largely similar effects. Furnishings were larger for improve implemented programs and those involving students at college hazard for aggressive behavior.

Conclusions

Schools seeking prevention programs may choose from a range of effective programs with some confidence that whatever they option will exist effective. Without the researcher involvement that characterizes the great majority of programs in this meta-analysis, schools might be well-advised to requite priority to those that volition be easiest to implement well in their settings.

Introduction

Schools are an of import location for interventions to foreclose or reduce aggressive beliefs. They are a setting in which much interpersonal assailment among children occurs and the but setting with almost universal access to children. In that location are many prevention strategies from which school administrators might choose, including surveillance (e.k., metal detectors, security guards); deterrence (e.yard., disciplinary rules, zilch tolerance policies); and psychosocial programs. Over 75% of schools in one national sample reported using one or more of these prevention strategies to deal with behavior problems.¹ Other reports similarly indicate that more than than three fourths of schools offer mental health, social service, and prevention service options for students and their families.² Among psychosocial prevention strategies, there is a broad assortment of programs available that can be implemented in schools. These include packaged curricula and home-grown programs for utilize schoolwide and others that target selected children already showing behavior problems or deemed to be at risk for such problems. Each addresses some range of social and emotional factors causeless to cause ambitious behavior or to be instrumental in controlling it (eastward.thousand., social skills or emotional self-regulation), and uses one of several broad intervention approaches, with cognitively oriented programs, behavioral programs, social skills preparation, and counseling/therapy among the virtually mutual (see Table 2).

Tabular array 2

Treatment modalities for the four service formats

Modality	Clarification	Examples	# Universal programs	# Selected programsa	# Special programsa	# Comp. programsa
Behavioral strategies	Techniques, such every bit rewards, token economies, contingency contracts, and the like to modify or reduce inappropriate beliefs.	Good Beliefs Game 15	4	29	thirteen	6
Cognitively-oriented	Focus on irresolute thinking or cognitive skills; social problem solving; controlling anger, inhibiting hostile attributions, etc.	I Can Problem Solve 16; Coping Ability Program 17	54	41	17	nine
Social skills training	Assist youth better understand social beliefs and larn appropriate social skills, due east.g., communication skills, disharmonize management, group entry skills, middle contact, "I" statements, etc.	Social skills training xviii; Conflict resolution training nineteen	17	26	11	xi
Counseling, therapy	Traditional group, private, or family counseling or therapy techniques.	Mental wellness intervention 20; Group counseling 21	two	26	11	vii
Peer mediation	Pupil conflicts are mediated by a trained student peer.	Peer mediation 22	--	5	--	2
Parent training	Parent skills training and family group counseling; These components were e'er supplemental to the services received by students in the school setting.	Raising Healthy Children 23; Fast Track 24	--	--	--	xi

In 2003, we published a meta-analysis on the effects of school-based psychosocial interventions for reducing aggressive and disruptive behavior aimed at identifying the characteristics of the most effective programs.³ That meta-assay included 172 experimental and quasi-experimental studies of intervention programs, virtually of which were conducted as inquiry or demonstration projects with meaning researcher involvement in plan implementation. Although not necessarily representative of routine practice in schools, these programs showed significant potential for reducing aggressive and disruptive behavior, especially for students whose baseline levels were already loftier. Different intervention approaches appeared every bit effective, but significantly larger reductions in ambitious and disruptive beliefs were produced by those programs with better implementation, that is, more complete delivery of the intended intervention to the intended recipients.

Since the publication of that review, many new evaluation studies of school-based interventions accept go available. The call for schools to implement show-based programs has intensified every bit well. Various resources are available to help schools identify programs with proven effectiveness. Amid these resource are the Blueprints for Violence Prevention, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), and the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices (NREPP) administered by the Substance Corruption and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA). There is, however, little indication that the evidence-based programs promoted to schools through such sources have been widely adopted or that, when adopted, they are implemented with allegiance.^four

While lists of prove-based programs tin provide useful guidance to schools most interventions likely to be constructive in their settings, they are limited by their orientation to distinct program models and the relatively few studies typically available for each such programme. A meta-analysis, by contrast, can encompass virtually all credible studies of such interventions and yield testify about generic intervention approaches besides as singled-out plan models.

Perhaps most important, it tin can illuminate the features that characterize the most effective programs and the kinds of students who benefit near. Since many schools already accept prevention programs in place, a meta-analysis that identifies characteristics of successful prevention programs can inform schools about ways they might better those programs or better direct them to the students for whom they are likely to be nearly effective. Thus, the purpose of the meta-analysis reported here is to update our previous work by adding recent research and further investigate which program and student characteristics are associated with the most effective treatments.

Method

Criteria for Including Studies in the Meta-assay

Studies were selected for this meta-assay based on a fix of detailed criteria, summarized as follows:

The written report was reported in English no earlier than 1950 and involved a school-based program for children attending any grade, pre-Kindergarten through 12^th grade.

The report assessed intervention effects on at least one effect variable that represented either (1) ambitious or violent behavior (eastward.one thousand., fighting, bullying, person crimes); (ii) disruptive behavior (e.g., classroom disruption, conduct disorder, acting out); or (three) both ambitious and confusing behavior.

The report used an experimental or quasi-experimental blueprint that compared students exposed to ane or more identifiable intervention conditions with one or more than comparison conditions on at to the lowest degree one qualifying outcome variable.

To qualify every bit an experimental or quasi-experimental design, a study was required to see at least 1 of the following criteria:

Students or classrooms were randomly assigned to conditions;

Students in the intervention and comparison conditions were matched and the matching variables included a pretest for at least one qualifying effect variable or a close proxy; and

If students or classrooms were non randomly assigned or matched, the study reported both pretest and posttest values on at least one qualifying outcome variable or sufficient demographic information to draw the initial equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups.

Search and Retrieval of Studies

An effort was made to place and retrieve the unabridged population of published and unpublished studies that met the inclusion criteria summarized above. Nearly all of the studies from the original meta-analysis were eligible (pre–postal service change was also examined in that meta-analysis and some of the studies used for that purpose did not have comparison groups). The primary source of new studies was a comprehensive search of bibliographic databases, including Psychological Abstracts, Dissertation Abstracts International, ERIC (Educational Resource Information Center), Us Government Press Role publications, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, and MedLine. Second, the bibliographies of recent meta-analyses and literature reviews were reviewed for eligible studies.^{v – 10} This bibliography was also compared with that from the companion Guide to Community Preventive Services (the Community Guide) and exchanged citations for studies that they identified and this study did not.^xi Finally, the bibliographies of retrieved studies were themselves examined for candidate studies. Identified studies were retrieved from the library, obtained via interlibrary loan, or requested straight from the author. More than 95% of the reports identified as potentially eligible were obtained and screened through these sources.

Coding of Study Reports

Report findings were coded to represent the mean deviation in aggressive beliefs between experimental conditions at the posttest measurement. The effect size statistic used for these purposes was the standardized hateful difference, defined every bit the difference between the treatment and control group ways on an result variable divided by their pooled standard deviation.^{12 , 13} In addition to upshot size values, information was coded for each study that described the methods and procedures, the intervention, and the student samples (coding categories are shown in Tabular array 1). Coding reliability was adamant from a sample of approximately 10% of the studies that were randomly selected and recoded by a unlike coder. For categorical items, intercoder agreement ranged from 73% to 100%. For continuous items, the intercoder correlations ranged from 0.76 to 0.99. A copy of the total coding protocol is available from the first author.

Tabular array 1

Characteristics of the studies with aggressive/disruptive behavior outcomes

Variable	North	%a
Bailiwick characteristics
Gender mix
All males (> 95%)	43	17
> 60 % males	65	26
50-60% males	89	36
< l% males	25	10
No males (< 5%)	17	7
Missing	10	4
Historic period of subjects
Pre-K & Kindergarten	21	8
6 through 10	106	43
eleven through 13	72	29
xiv and up	50	20
Predominant ethnicity
White	77	31
Blackness	63	25
Hispanic	19	8
Other minority	v	2
Mixed ethnicity	ix	4
Missing	72	29
Socioeconomic status
Mainly low SES	71	29
Working/middle SES	33	thirteen
Mixed, low to middle	28	11
Missing	117	47
Subject run a risk
General, depression hazard	97	39
Selected, risk factors	105	42
Indicated, problem beh.	47	nineteen
Program characteristics
Program format
Universal/In class	77	31
Selected/Pull-out	108	43
Comprehensive	21	8
Special instruction	43	17
Delivery personnel
Teacher	85	34
Researcher	69	28
Multiple personnel	46	18
Other	49	xx
Handling format
Individual, i/one	28	11
Grouping	183	73
Mixed	38	xv
Manualized treatment
Manualized or structured	191	77
Unstructured program	58	23
Demonstration vs. routine practice
Enquiry programs	124	50
Demonstration programs	93	37
Routine exercise	32	thirteen
Program duration (weeks)
1 to 6 weeks	48	19
7 to 19 weeks	108	43
20 to 37 weeks	51	21
38 and up	42	17
Frequency of service contact
Less than weekly	27	11
1 to 2× per week	135	54
3 to 4× per week	23	9
Daily	60	24
Missing	4	two
Implementation problems
No or none mentioned	161	65
Possible problems	twoscore	16
Explicit problems	48	xix
Handling modality (not mutually sectional)
Social trouble solving	97	39
Social skills training	84	34
Anger management	71	29
Behavioral treatment	54	22
Counseling	51	21
Bookish services	27	11
Other cognitive	15	6
Method characteristics
Study pattern
Private random design	108	43
Cluster random design	l	twenty
Quasi-experiment	91	37
Pretest aligning
Yes	200	80
No	49	20
Number of items in DV
Single item	55	22
two-5 items	56	23
More 5 items	138	55
Attrition
None (or non available) b	119	48
1% - 10%	37	15
> 10%	93	37
Source of effect measure out
Teacher report	120	48
Cocky-study	54	22
Records, archives	34	14
Observations	27	11
Parent report	6	2
Peer report	iv	ii
Other	four	2
Full general study information
Publication twelvemonth
1960s & 1970s	40	xvi
1980s	66	27
1990s and up	143	57
Form of publication
Journal commodity	152	61
Dissertation, thesis	75	30
Other unpublished	22	ix
Discipline of senior writer
Psychology	97	39
Education	92	37
Other	60	24
Country of report
USA	225	90
Canada	20	8
UK	2	i
Australia	2	1

General Analytic Procedures

All effect sizes were multiplied past the modest sample correction factor, 1 – (three/fournorth–9), where north is the total sample size for the study, and each was weighted past its inverse variance in all computations.^{xiii , 14} The inverse variance weights were computed using the discipline-level sample size for each outcome size. Because many of the studies used groups (e.g., classrooms, schools) as the unit of consignment to intervention and command conditions, they involved a design effect associated with the clustering of students within classrooms or schools that reduces the effective sample size. The respective study reports provided no basis for estimating those blueprint furnishings or adjusting the inverse variance weights for them, and so they were ignored in the analyses reported here. This should non profoundly affect the event sizes estimates or the magnitude of their relationships to moderator variables, merely does assign them somewhat smaller standard error estimates and, hence, larger changed variance weights than is technically right. A dummy code identifying these cases was included in the analyses to reveal any differences in findings from these studies relative to those using students as the unit of assignment.

Examination of the result size distribution identified a pocket-sized number of outliers with potential to distort the analysis; these were recoded to less extreme values.^{xiii , xiv} In addition, several studies used unusually large samples. Considering the inverse variance weights chiefly reflect sample size, those few studies would boss any analysis in which they were included. Therefore, the extreme tail of the sample size distribution was recoded to a maximum of 250 students per intervention or control grouping for the ciphering of weights. These adjustments allowed united states to retain outliers in the analysis, but with less extreme values that would non do undue influence on the analysis results.

To create sets of contained effect size estimates for analysis, only one consequence size from each bailiwick sample was used in whatever analysis. When more than 1 was available, the effect size from the measurement source well-nigh frequently represented across all studies (eastward.thousand., teachers' reports, cocky-reports) was selected. The desire was to retain informant as a variable for analysis, so the average across effect sizes from different informants was not used; if in that location was more than one effect size from the aforementioned informant or source, withal, their mean value was used.

Finally, many studies provided data sufficient for computing mean difference upshot sizes on the outcome variables at the pretest. In such cases, the posttest consequence size was adjusted past subtracting the pretest effect size value. This data was included in the analyses presented below to test whether at that place were systematic differences between upshot sizes adapted in this style and those that were not.

Analysis of the effect sizes was conducted separately for each program format (described beneath) and washed in several stages. The homogeneity of the effect size distributions using the Q-statistic was tested offset.¹⁴ Moderator analyses were then performed to identify the characteristics of the most effective programs using weighted mixed effects multiple regression with the aggressive/disruptive behavior upshot size as the dependent variable. In the first stage of this analysis, the influence of study methods on effect sizes was examined. Influential method variables were carried forward every bit control variables for the next stage of analysis, which examined the relationships betwixt program and student characteristics and issue size. Random effects analysis was used throughout but, in low-cal of the small-scale number of studies in some categories and the big effect size variance, statistical significance was reported at the blastoff=0.x level as well as the conventional 0.05 level.

Results

Outcomes

The literature search and coding process yielded data from 399 school-based studies. The inquiry studies included in this meta-assay examined program effects on many different outcomes, ranging from assailment and violence to social skills, academic functioning, and self-esteem. Figure 1 presents the hateful outcome sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the near widely represented effect categories. This report, however, will focus on the outcomes about relevant to school violence prevention, namely aggressive and disruptive behavior.^a

Weighted means and 95% conviction intervals (CI) for the effects of school-based programs on each issue

The event categories shown in Figure 1 are defined as follows. The main issue of involvement is ambitious and confusing behavior, which involves a variety of negative interpersonal behaviors including fighting, striking, bullying, verbal conflict, disruptiveness, acting out and the similar.^b The almost common type of measure in this category is a teacher-reported survey. Next, there are three categories of behavior problems that are closely related to aggression. These are problem behavior (i.e., measures that include both internalizing and externalizing behaviors like the Child Behavior Checklist [CBCL] Total score; www.aseba.org/products/cbcl6-xviii.html), activeness level/attention issues, and acrimony/hostility/rebelliousness. Two categories of outcomes chronicle to social aligning. The starting time, and most common subsequently aggression/disruption, includes measures of specific skills, for example, communication skills, social problem solving, conflict resolution skills. Social adjustment, on the other hand, involves measures of how well children go along with their peers, that is, do they have friends, are they well-liked or rejected. The two categories of schoolhouse outcomes are school operation (e.k., achievement tests, grades) and school participation (e.thousand., tardiness, truancy, dropout). The personal adjustment category includes measures of self-esteem, self-concept, and other measures of general well-being. Internalizing problems encompasses anxiety, depression, and the similar. The last category includes various measures of students' knowledge and attitudes well-nigh problem behavior.

Every bit shown in Figure 1, all of these outcomes were positive and statistically pregnant with mean effect sizes in the 0.20 to 0.35 range. The outcome of principal interest for this meta-analysis, aggressive/confusing behavior, was most ofttimes measured via teacher report and showed a hateful effect size of 0.21 (p<0.05). The results reported in the remainder of this paper pertain only to the consequence sizes for these aggressive/disruptive outcomes from the 249 studies that reported them. Our earlier meta-assay included 172 studies with control grouping designs and aggressive/disruptive behavior outcomes; thus, the current sample includes an boosted 77 studies.

General Study Characteristics

The general characteristics of the 249 studies with aggressive and disruptive behavior outcomes are shown in Table ane. Ninety percent were conducted in the U.Due south. with almost 75% done past researchers in psychology or education. Fewer than twenty% were conducted prior to 1980 and about were published in peer-reviewed journals (60%), with the residual reported as dissertations, theses, conference papers, and technical reports.

The student samples reflect the diversity in American schools. Almost were comprised of a mix of boys and girls, but at that place were some all male child samples (17%) and a few all girl samples (7%). Minority children were well represented with over a third of the studies having primarily minority youth; nearly 30%, even so, did not study ethnicity information. All school ages were included, from preschool through high schoolhouse; the boilerplate age was around ten. A range of gamble levels was besides nowadays, from generally low-risk students to those with serious beliefs bug. Socioeconomic status was not widely reported, simply a range of socioeconomic levels was represented amid those studies for which it was reported.

Most studies were conducted as research or demonstration projects with relatively high levels of researcher involvement; however, the number of routine exercise programs was increased from eight in the original meta-analysis to 32. Nigh two thirds of the programs were less than 20 weeks in length and about one-half had service contacts about one time per calendar week. Programs were generally manualized and delivered by teachers or the researchers themselves. Almost 35% of the reports mentioned some difficulties with the implementation of the programme. This information, when reported, presented a great multifariousness of relatively idiosyncratic problems, for example, attendance at sessions, dropouts from the program, turnover amongst delivery personnel, problems scheduling all sessions or delivering them as intended, wide variation between dissimilar program settings or providers, results from implementation fidelity measures. This necessitated utilise of a rather broad coding scheme in which three categories of implementation quality were distinguished: no issues indicated, possible bug (some suggestion of difficulties only little explicit information), and definite problems explicitly reported.

Slightly over 40% of the studies used individual-level random assignment to classify subjects to handling and comparison groups. An boosted 20% utilized cluster-randomization procedures, unremarkably at the classroom level, although in many cases at that place were only a few units randomized. The remaining 91 studies used nonrandom procedures to classify students. Attrition was considerable in some studies, non-existent in others, and averaged about 12%.

Programme Format and Treatment Modality

The 249 eligible studies involved a variety of prevention and intervention programs. For purposes of analyzing their effects on student aggressive/disruptive behavior, they were divided into 4 groups according to their full general service format. Programs differ across these groups on a number of methodologic, participant, and intervention characteristics that make it unwise to combine them in a single analysis. The iv intervention formats are as follows:

Universal programs. These programs are delivered in classroom settings to all the students in the classroom; that is, the children are not selected individually for treatment merely, rather, receive information technology just because they are in a program classroom. Nonetheless, the schools with such programs are ofttimes in low socioeconomic status and/or loftier-crime neighborhoods and, thus, the children in these universal programs may be considered at risk by virtue of their socioeconomic background or neighborhood context.

Selected/Indicated programs. These programs are provided to students who are specifically selected to receive treatment because of conduct problems or some run a risk gene (typically identified by teachers for social problems or pocket-sized classroom disruptiveness). Most of these programs are delivered to the selected children outside of their regular classrooms (either individually or in groups), although some are used in the regular classrooms only targeted on the selected children.

Special schools or classes. These programs involve special schools or classrooms that serve as the usual educational setting for the students involved. Children are placed in these special schools or classrooms because of behavioral or academic difficulties that schools practise not want to address in the context of mainstream classrooms. Included in this category are special instruction classrooms for behavior disordered children, culling high schools, and schools-within-schools programs.

Comprehensive/multimodal programs. These programs involve multiple distinct intervention elements (e.thousand., a social skills program for students and parenting skills preparation) and/or a mix of dissimilar intervention formats. They may likewise involve programs for parents or capacity edifice for school administrators and teachers in addition to the programming provided to the students. Within the comprehensive service format, programs were divided into universal and selected/indicated programs. Universal comprehensive programs included multiple treatment modalities, simply intervention components were delivered universally to all children in a school or classroom. Selected/indicated comprehensive programs also included multiple modalities, merely the children receiving these programs were individually selected for treatment by virtue of behavior issues or risk for such bug. All but one of the programs in this subcategory included services for both students and their parents.

The treatment modalities used in these different service formats varied. However, cognitively oriented approaches and social skills training were common across all four service formats. Cognitively oriented strategies focused on changing thinking patterns, developing social problem solving skills or self command, and managing anger. Social skills training focused on learning effective behavior for interpersonal interactions, including communication skills and conflict management. As well relatively mutual amidst the modalities were behavioral strategies that manipulated rewards and incentives. Counseling for individuals, groups, or families was also represented. Tabular array 2 shows the unlike treatment modalities used past the programs represented in this meta-analysis and their distribution across the four service formats. For the universal programs, treatment modalities lended themselves to mutually exclusive coding. Treatment modality codes were not mutually exclusive, however, for the selected/indicated, special, and comprehensive service formats. For these service formats, each modality was coded as being present or not nowadays.

Although the universal programs were coded every bit having a single modality, some did involve multiple treatment components, typically two different types of cognitively oriented programming. Some of the selected/indicated and special programs were coded with more one treatment component, but were not categorized as comprehensive programs. Different the comprehensive programs, they were not billed as comprehensive or multimodal by their authors nor did their multiple components involve different types of treatment and/or unlike targets (due east.g., a school-based cerebral component and a family unit-based component). The identified multiple handling components with selected/indicated and special programs were frequently two types of programming within the same modality (e.thou., anger direction and social trouble solving) or a cognitive component and a social skills component. None of the multiple-component programs in the selected/indicated or special categories involved singled-out types of treatment, distinct formats, or multiple targets.

Results for Universal Programs

There were 77 studies of universal programs in the database, all delivered in classroom settings to unabridged classes of students.^c Four treatment modalities were represented, as shown in Tabular array two. Cognitively oriented programs were the primary modality, with some social skills interventions and a few behavioral and counseling ones. The overall weighted mean issue size on aggressive/confusing behavior outcomes was 0.21 (p<0.05). The exam of homogeneity showed meaning variability beyond the effect sizes (Q₇₆=212, p<0.05).¹⁴ This variation was expected to be associated with the nature of the interventions, students, and methods used in these studies. The beginning focus was on the human relationship betwixt written report methods and the intervention effects found by examining the correlation of each method variable with outcome size, using random effects inverse variance weights estimated via maximum likelihood.²⁵

Table iii shows the results. Virtually notable is the lack of significant relationships between the study blueprint variables and effect size. There were just five individual-level random consignment studies of universal programs, then the primary contrast here is betwixt nonrandomized and cluster randomized studies, with neither related to event size. Merely 1 method variable had a meaning correlation—outcome measures reported past the students themselves showed smaller upshot sizes than measures from other sources or informants (chiefly instructor reports). Several other variables had modest (r ≥ 0.x) merely nonsignificant correlations with effect size. Outcome measures with more than five items were associated with smaller consequence sizes. Event sizes that were able to exist adjusted for pretest differences (by subtracting the pretest effect size) were smaller than unadjusted effect sizes. Greater attrition was also associated with smaller furnishings. Each of these variables, plus a dummy code for nonrandom assignment, was carried forwards to all later on analyses to command for the possible influence of method differences on study results.

Table 3

Correlations betwixt written report method characteristics and aggressive/disruptive behavior outcome sizes for universal programs (N=77)

Method Variable	Correlation
Instructor reported outcome measure out	0.07
Self-reported outcome measure out	-0.23**
Number of items in consequence measure	-0.19*
Timing of measurement	-0.02
Cluster random assignment	-0.07
Non-random assignment	0.07
Pretest adjustment	-0.thirteen
ES calculated with means/sds (vs. all other methods)	-0.05
Degree of estimation in ES calculation	-0.02
Compunction (% loss)	-0.13
Number of ES aggregated	-0.08

The adjacent step was to identify student and program characteristics that were associated with event size while controlling for method variables. To accomplish this, a serial of inverse-variance weighted random effects multiple regressions were conducted with each including but a unmarried student or program variable plus the 5 method variables identified in a higher place. These analyses were outset run separately in society to identify the relationships between each study characteristic and effect size without the confounding influence of other study characteristics. Table 4 presents the results of these regression analyses.

Table 4

Relationships between Private study characteristics and ambitious/disruptive beliefs result sizes for universal programs with selected method variables controlled (Northward=77)

Study characteristic	β(with method controls)a
General report characteristics
Twelvemonth of publication	-0.03
Unpublished (0) vs. published (one)	0.12
Student characteristics
Gender mix (% male)	0.07
Age	-0.27**
Mixed or middle SES (0) vs. low SES (1)	0.21*
Researcher role in report
Routine practice program (1=research, ii=demonstration, 3=routine)	-0.thirteen
Commitment personnel
Instructor provider	-0.02
Amount & quality of treatment
Duration of treatment (in weeks; logged)	-0.07
Number of sessions per week (i=less than weekly to 9=daily)	0.09
Implementation bug (i=yeah, 2=possible, 3=no)	0.15
Treatment modality
Cognitively oriented
Acrimony management component	0.02
Social trouble solving component	0.06
Social skills training	-0.04

Only ii student variables were significantly associated with result size—age and socioeconomic status. Younger students showed larger effects from universal programming than older students and children with low socioeconomic status showed larger effects than their middle class peers. Several other variables in this analysis had regression coefficients that were modest (β ≥ 0.10) although nonsignificant. Published studies, inquiry and demonstration programs (versus routine practice), and well-implemented programs all showed somewhat larger effect sizes than studies without these characteristics.

Annotation that Table 4 reports the human relationship between effect size and each of the three most common treatment modalities for universal programs. The cognitively oriented programs were separated into two groups: anger management programs and social problem solving programs. These were the most frequent types of cognitively oriented programs and were not mutually sectional. The tertiary category included the social skills programs. None of these treatment modalities was associated with significantly larger or smaller consequence sizes relative to the others.

To examine the independent influence of all the variables identified so far every bit potential moderators of intervention furnishings, the significant variables from Tabular array 4, besides as those with individual regression coefficients larger than 0.ten and the five method controls, were carried frontwards into a summary regression analysis. Every bit shown in Table 5, but student socioeconomic status was significant in this model, although several other variables showed nonsignificant regression coefficients of ≥0.10. As in the individual variable analysis above, students with low socioeconomic status achieved significantly greater reductions in aggressive and disruptive behavior from universal programs than eye class students. In addition, published studies, younger students, research and demonstration programs, and implementation quality were all modestly associated with larger consequence sizes, although these relationships did not reach statistical significance.

Table 5

Regression model for effect size moderators for universal programs (N=7)

Study feature	β
Method Characteristics
Cocky-reported dependent measure	-0.13
Pretest adjustment	0.05
Attrition	0.04
Non-random assignment	0.06
Number of items in result measure	-0.18
General study characteristics
Unpublished (0) vs. published (1)	0.19
Pupil characteristics
Age	-0.18
Mixed or middle SES (0) vs. depression (1)	0.27**
Researcher role in study
Routine exercise program (1=research, ii=demo, 3=routine)	-0.ten
Amount andality of handling
Implementation quality	0.fourteen

Results for Selected/Indicated Programs

There were 108 studies of selected/indicated programs that targeted interventions to individually identified children. Nearly all of these programs were "pull-out" programs delivered outside the classroom to pocket-sized groups or individual students. The overall random effects mean effect size for these programs was 0.29 (p <0.05). 5 treatment modalities were identified amid these programs, equally described in Table two. Every bit with the universal programs, the virtually common programs were cognitively oriented, although behavioral strategies, social skills preparation, and counseling programs were well represented. Many of the behavioral programs for selected students involved an in-course component (e.g., behavioral contracts monitored by the instructor).

The homogeneity test of the effect sizes showed significant variability across studies (Q₁₀₈=300, p<0.05) and the analysis of the relationships between result size and methodologic and substantive characteristics of the studies proceeded much the aforementioned as for the universal programs. Commencement, the correlation of each method variable with the ambitious/disruptive beliefs effect sizes was examined (Table 6). Hither besides the study design was not associated with consequence size—random assignment studies did non show appreciably smaller or larger effects than nonrandomized studies. Note that for the selected/indicated programs the blueprint contrast was primarily between individual-level randomization and nonrandomization; there were only six cluster randomized studies. The two method variables that did testify significant null-club relationships with effect size were outcome measures with more five items and compunction, both associated with smaller event sizes. Aligning of consequence sizes for pretest differences was the only other method variable with a correlation larger than 0.10 with effect size, but it did non reach statistical significance. Four method variables were carried forward into additional analyses: random assignment, pretest adjustment, number of items in the result mensurate, and attrition.

Table half dozen

Correlations between written report method characteristics and ambitious/disruptive behavior upshot sizes for selected/indicated pull-out programs (Due north=108)

Method variable	Correlation
Teacher reported outcome measure	-0.00
Archival result mensurate	0.06
Observational upshot mensurate	-0.00
Number of items in result measure	-0.19*
Timing of measurement	0.07
Random assignment	-0.01
Pretest aligning	-0.11
ES calculated with ways/sds (vs. all other methods)	-0.09
Caste of estimation in ES calculation	-0.09
Attrition (% loss)	-0.22**
Number of ES aggregated	0.05

Table 7 shows the regression coefficients from a serial of regression analyses, each of which included the iv method control variables and a single substantive variable. Five student and program variables had significant relationships with result size in these analyses. College-gamble subjects showed larger effect sizes than lower hazard subjects, though, with the selected/indicated programs, very few depression-risk children were involved. The stardom here is mainly between indicated students who are already exhibiting beliefs problems and selected students who accept take chances factors that may lead to later problems. Regarding the intervention programs, individual handling (versus group) and programs with higher quality implementation were associated with larger effects. In addition, programs using behavioral strategies produced significantly greater reductions in ambitious/disruptive beliefs than the other modalities.

Tabular array 7

Relationships betwixt individual study characteristics and aggressive/disruptive behavior effect sizes for selected/indicated pull-out programs with method variables controlled (N=108)

Study characteristic	β(with method controls)a
General report characteristics
Year of publication	-0.12
Unpublished (0) vs. published (one)	-0.xvi
Pupil characteristics
Gender mix (% male person)	0.05
Age	0.04
Mixed or middle SES (0) vs. low (1)	0.05
Risk level	0.23**
Researcher role in report
Routine practice program (1=research, two=demonstration, 3=routine)	0.09
Delivery personnel
Researcher provider	0.05
Teacher provider	0.01
Service professional provider	0.03
Amount, format, & quality of treatment
Manualized (i) vs. unstructured treatment (2)	0.09
Group treatment	-0.16*
Individual treatment	0.17*
Duration of handling (in weeks; logged)	0.07
Number of sessions per week (one=less than weekly to seven=daily)	0.02
Implementation problems (1=yep, 2=possible, three=no)	0.15*
Handling modality
Cognitively oriented
Anger management component	-0.04
Social trouble solving component	-0.07
Social skills training	-0.06
Counseling	-0.02
Behavioral strategies	0.xx**

The four significant pupil and program variables and the two with individual regression coefficients greater than 0.10, along with the 4 method control variables, were included in the terminal summary regression model shown in Table 8. Two methodologic characteristics were significantly associated with smaller effects—greater compunction and upshot variables with more than five items. The risk variable was also significant; programs accomplished larger effects with higher run a risk students. Socioeconomic status, although not related to effect size, was significantly correlated with risk such that higher gamble students tended to be of lower socioeconomic condition. Individual treatments were no longer significantly different from other forms of delivery, although the human relationship still favored individual treatments. Meliorate implemented programs produced significantly larger effects than poorly implemented ones. Finally, programs using behavioral strategies were more than effective than those which used other modalities.

Tabular array eight

regression model for effect size moderators for selected/indicated pull-out programs (N=108)

Study characteristic	β
Method characteristics
Random assignment	.05
Pretest adjustment	-.03
Attrition (% loss)	-.21**
Number of items in upshot mensurate	-.xv*
General report characteristics
Yr of publication	-.10
Published (1) vs. unpublished (0)	-.08
Student characteristics
Risk level (one=general; two=at-gamble; 3=indicated)	.xix**
Amount, format, & quality of treatment
Private treatment	.xi
Implementation bug (one=yes, 2=possible, iii=no)	.18**
Treatment modality
Behavioral strategies	.15*

Results for Special Schools or Classes

There were 43 studies of programs delivered in special schools or classrooms. These programs generally involved an academic curriculum plus programming for social or aggressive behavior. The students typically had behavioral (and often academic) difficulties that resulted in their placement outside of mainstream classrooms. The mean aggressive/confusing behavior consequence size for these programs was 0.11 (p<0.10). The Q test was significant (Q₄₂=82, p<0.05), indicating that the distribution of effect sizes was heterogeneous. About xl% of the studies of special programs assigned students to intervention and control conditions at the classroom level, while the remaining 60% used private-level assignment. As a result, there may be a design effect associated with the clustering of students inside classrooms that overstates the significance, although the overall effect size and the regression coefficients presented beneath should not be profoundly affected.

The correlations between the method variables and effect sizes are shown in Table 9. Effect sizes adjusted for pretest differences were significantly larger than outcome sizes that were not adjusted, a dissimilarity with the universal and selected/indicated programs where pretest adjustments were associated with smaller effect sizes. Although not significant, studies with individual-level random assignment were associated with smaller effects than studies that used other consignment methods and greater attrition was associated with smaller effect sizes. In addition, self-reported outcomes tended to produce smaller effect sizes.

Table nine

correlations betwixt study method characteristics and ambitious/confusing behavior upshot sizes for special programs (Due north=43)

Method variable	Correlation
Instructor reported outcome measure	.01
Cocky reported outcome mensurate	-.24
Number of items in outcome measure	.04
Random assignment	-.20
Cluster random assignment	.15
Non-random assignment	.08
Pretest adjustment	.30**
ES calculated with means/sds (vs. all other methods)	-.03
Attrition (% loss)	-.24
Number of ES aggregated	-.05

For the side by side stage of analysis, the self reported outcome, pretest adjustment, random assignment, and attrition variables were carried forward as method controls in regression analyses with private written report characteristics (Table 10). Two variables were significant, whether an in-class or pull-out program and implementation quality. In ane class of the special programs, students were assigned to special teaching classes or schools and the plan was delivered entirely in the classroom setting. The other form involved students in special education classrooms who were pulled out of class for boosted small-scale group treatments. The programs delivered in classroom settings showed larger reductions in aggressive/disruptive behavior than the pull-out programs. Besides, every bit in other analyses, better implemented programs showed larger effects. Two handling modalities were tested in this model, cognitively oriented strategies and schools-within-schools programs, and neither were plant to be significant. The cognitively oriented programs were generally like to cognitive programs delivered within the universal and selected/indicated service formats. Schools inside schools were generally delivered with middle and high schools students and consisted of groups of students who were placed together for well-nigh or all of their teaching. Schools within schools are oft housed in a separate edifice or set of classrooms on a larger campus, and are characterized by smaller student–instructor ratios and more individualized attending. In many cases, the schools inside schools programs included here were designed for beliefs problem youth.^{26 , 27}

Table 10

Relationships between private study characteristics and aggressive/disruptive behavior upshot sizes with method variables controlled for special programs (N=43)

Study characteristic	β(with method controls)a
Full general study characteristics
Year of publication	-.22
Unpublished (0) vs. published (1)	.04
Student characteristics
Gender mix (% male)	.07
Age	-.03
Mixed or heart SES (0) vs. low (1)	-.08
Risk level	.25
Researcher function in report
Routine practice program (1=research, two=demo, 3=routine)	.01
Delivery personnel
Teacher provider	.05
Amount, format, & quality of treatment
Manualized (ane) vs. unstructured treatment (two)	-.14
In-form (ane) vs. pull-out treatment (ii)	-.38**
Duration of handling (in weeks; logged)	-.06
Number of sessions per week (0=less than daily, 1=daily)	.17
Implementation problems (0=yes, 1=no)	.42**
Treatment modality
Cognitively-oriented	-.08
Schools within schools component	.02

Results for Comprehensive or Multimodal Programs

There were only 21 studies of comprehensive programs in this database, distinguished by their multiple treatment components and formats. The average number of distinct treatment components for these programs was four, whereas the universal and selected/indicated programs typically had ane treatment component.^d The studies of comprehensive programs tended to involve larger samples of students than the other program formats and, like the special and universal programs, a larger proportion of cluster randomizations. Thus, the significance of the mean reported beneath is overstated. Comprehensive programs were generally longer than the universal and selected/indicated programs. The modal program covered an entire school year and almost half of the programs were longer than 1 twelvemonth. In contrast, the average program length for universal and selected/indicated programs was nigh twenty weeks.

The overall mean upshot size for the comprehensive programs was .05 and was not statistically significant. Students who participated in comprehensive programs were no ameliorate off than students who did non. In addition, the Q-test examination showed that the distribution of consequence sizes was homogeneous (Q₂₀=28, p >0.10). However, the Q-test has relatively depression statistical ability with small numbers of studies so, despite the nonsignificant outcome size heterogeneity, the correlations between written report method and substantive characteristics and outcome size were examined. Tabular array 12 shows pregnant bivariate relationships for nonrandomized assignment (larger result sizes) and cluster randomization (smaller outcome sizes). Amongst the program variables, longer treatments and more frequent sessions per week were associated with larger effect sizes. Universally delivered programs showed larger furnishings than pull-out programs. Table xiii shows that when the variables with significant correlations with effect size were included together in a regression model, only universally delivered (versus pull-out) programs and frequency of sessions per calendar week showed significant contained relationships to effect size. Call up that the comprehensive programs were divided into those that were universally delivered to all students regardless of hazard (n=12) and those that involved students individually selected for problem behavior or hazard for such behavior (due north=9). Although the mean effect size for all comprehensive programs was small and nonsignificant, universally delivered programs and those with more frequent handling contacts tended to produce larger reductions in ambitious and confusing behavior.

Table 12

Correlations between study characteristics and aggressive/disruptive beliefs outcome sizes for comprehensive programs (N=21)

Written report Variable	Correlation
Teacher reported outcome variable	.07
Number of items in outcome measure	.27
Number of ES aggregated	-.04
Random assignment	-.05
Non-random assignment	.42**
Cluster random assignment	-.33
Compunction (% loss)	.25
Publication twelvemonth	-.x
Published (1) vs. unpublished (0)	-.23
Function of evaluator (ane=delivered tx; 4=inquiry role only)	-.fourteen
Handling duration (weeks)	.34*
Frequency of sessions per week	.44**
Implementation quality	.17
Universal (1) vs. pull-out (two) format	-.34
Low SES (vs. mixed or middle class)	-.08
Risk level of subjects (low to high)	-.xi
Historic period	.10
Gender mix (% male)	-.12

Table thirteen

regression model for outcome size moderators for comprehensive programs (N=21)

Study Characteristic	β
Method characteristics
Non-random consignment	-.03
Format of programme
Universal (1) vs. Pull-out (2)	-.43*
Amount of treatment
Frequency of sessions per week	.53*
Programme duration (weeks)	-.02

Summary and Conclusion

The event addressed in this newspaper is the effectiveness of programs for preventing or reducing such aggressive and disruptive behaviors as fighting, bullying, proper name-calling, intimidation, acting out, and confusing behaviors occurring in school settings. The master finding is that, overall, the school-based programs that take been studied by researchers (and frequently developed and implemented past them as well) generally have positive furnishings for this purpose. The most common and nearly effective approaches are universal programs delivered to all the students in a classroom or school and targeted programs for selected/indicated children who participate in programs outside of their regular classrooms. The universal programs that were included in the analysis mainly used cognitive approaches, and so it is not clear whether their generally positive effects stem more than from the universal service format or the cognitively oriented treatment modality. Cognitively oriented approaches were also the nigh frequent among the selected/indicated programs, but many did employ behavioral, social skills, or counseling treatment modalities. Other than somewhat larger furnishings for programs with a behavioral component, differential utilize of these modalities was not associated with differential effects. This suggests that it may exist the selected/indicated programme format that is near important but does not rule out the possibility that the small number of treatment modalities used with that format are especially effective ones.

The mean effect sizes of 0.21 and 0.29 for universal and selected/indicated programs, respectively, stand for a decrease in ambitious/confusing behavior that is not only statistically significant but likely to be of applied significance to schools as well. Suppose, for example, that approximately 20% of students are involved in some version of such behavior during a typical school year. This is a plausible supposition according to the Indicators of School Crime and Condom: 2005, which reports that 13% of students aged 12–18 were in a fight on school property, 12% had been the targets of hate-related words, and 7% had been bullied.²⁸ Effect sizes of 0.21 and 0.29 represent reductions from a base rate prevalence of 20% to about fifteen% and xiii%, respectively, that is, 25%–33% reductions. The programs of in a higher place average effectiveness, of grade, produce even larger decreases.

The substantial similarity of the hateful issue sizes across service formats and treatment modalities for the universal and selected/indicated programs suggests that schools may choose from a range of such programs with some confidence that whatsoever they pick will exist about equally effective as whatever other choice. In the absenteeism of bear witness that one modality is significantly more than constructive at reducing ambitious and disruptive behavior than some other, schools might benefit near by considering ease of implementation when selecting programs and focusing on implementation quality once programs are in place. The coding of implementation quality, albeit crude, was associated with larger effect sizes for all four handling formats, although statistically significant only for selected/indicated and special programs. A very high proportion of the studies in this meta-assay, however, were research or sit-in projects in which the researchers had a relatively big directly influence on the service delivery. Schools adopting these programs without such engagement may accept difficulty attaining comparable program fidelity, a concern reinforced past prove of frequent weak implementation in actual practice⁴. The all-time choice of a universal or selected/indicated program for a schoolhouse, therefore, may exist the one they are well-nigh confident they can implement well.

Another significant cistron that cut beyond the universal and selected/indicated programs was the risk level of the students receiving the intervention. Larger treatment effects were achieved with higher adventure students. For the universal programs, the greatest benefits appeared for students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds while, for the selected/indicated programs, it was students already exhibiting problematic behavior that showed the largest furnishings. Universal programs did not specifically select students with individual risk factors or behavior bug, although many students were of low socioeconomic status and there were most likely some behavior problem students in the classrooms that received universal interventions. And, although socioeconomic status was not pregnant in the analysis of selected/indicated programs, the weighted correlation betwixt risk and socioeconomic status for the selected/indicated students was significant.⁴¹ These findings reinforce the truism that a program cannot take large furnishings unless there is sufficient trouble behavior, or run a risk for such behavior, to allow for pregnant improvement.

The programs in the category that are called comprehensive, in contrast to the universal and selected/indicated programs, were surprisingly ineffective. On the face of information technology, combinations of universal and pull-out treatment elements and multiple intervention strategies would be expected to exist at least as effective, if not more and then, than less multifaceted programs. Their small and nonsignificant hateful upshot size raises questions about the value of such programs. It should be noted, withal, that most of these were long-term schoolwide programs. It may be that this broad scope is associated with some dilution of the intensity and focus of the programs then that students accept less engagement with them than with the programs in the universal and selected/indicated categories. It may likewise be relevant that proportionately fewer of the programs in this category involved the cognitively oriented handling modalities that were the most widely represented ones amongst the universal and selected/indicated programs. This is an surface area that clearly warrants further study.

The virtually distinctive programs in this collection were those for students in special didactics and other such singular schoolhouse settings. The mean effect size for these programs was modest though statistically significant. These results too are somewhat anomalous. One of the indicate characteristics of students in these settings is a relatively loftier level of behavior problems or risk for such issues, thus there should exist ample room for improvement. On the other mitt, the special school settings in which they are placed can exist expected to already have some programming in place to bargain with such problems. The command conditions in these studies would thus reflect the effects of that practice-every bit-usual situation with less value added provided past boosted programming of the sort examined in these studies. Alternatively, however, the improver programs studied in these cases may have been weaker than those establish in the selected/indicated format or the more serious beliefs problems of students in these settings may be more resistant to modify. Here likewise the bug that warrant further study.

A particular concern of our earlier meta-analysis was the smaller effects of routine practice programs in comparison to those of the more heavily represented inquiry and demonstration programs.³ Routine practice programs are those implemented in a school on an ongoing routine basis and evaluated by a researcher with no direct office in developing or implementing the programme. Inquiry and sit-in programs are mounted by a researcher for inquiry or demonstration purposes with the researcher often being the program developer and heavily involved in the implementation of the program, although somewhat less so for sit-in programs. In the nowadays meta-assay, somewhat more studies of routine programs were included and information technology is reassuring that their mean result sizes, although smaller than those for enquiry and demonstration programs, were not significantly smaller. As shown in Tables four, ​ vii, and ​ 10, routine do programs did not bear witness significantly meliorate or worse outcomes than research and demonstration programs for universal, selected/indicated or special programs.^d But 32 of the 249 studies in this meta-analysis examined routine practice programs, still, with thirteen in the universal format, 11 in the selected/indicated pullout format, and 7 in the special format. This number dramatizes how little show exists near the actual effectiveness, in everyday real-world practice, of the kinds of school-based programs for aggressive/disruptive beliefs represented in this review.

​

Table 11

Regression model for effect size moderators for special programs (N=43)

Study Characteristic	β
Method characteristics
Self reported outcome measure out	.18
Random assignment	.02
Pretest adjustment	.28
Attrition (% loss)	-.27
General study characteristics
Yr of publication	-.04
Pupil characteristics
Risk level	.21
Amount, format, & quality of treatment
In-form (ane) vs. pull-out treatment (ii)	-.24
Implementation issues (0=yes, 1=no)	.32**

Acknowledgments

The research reported in this commodity was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Establish of Justice, and the Centers for Illness Control and Prevention. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Kerstin Blomquist, Rose Vick, Dina Capitani, Gabrielle Chapman, Carole Cunningham, Jorie Henrickson, Young-il Kim, January Morrison, Kushal Patel, Shanna Ray, and Judy Formosa.

Footnotes

A bibliography of studies included in the meta-analysis is available from the first author or on the following website: www.vanderbilt.edu/CERM.

^aStudies otherwise eligible but without aggressive/confusing behavior outcomes were coded as part of a larger projection. Thus, 399 studies appear in Figure 1, while only 249 are represented in the master analysis of ambitious and confusing beliefs consequence sizes.

^bIdeally, nosotros would accept liked to examine program effects only on aggressive behavior. Still, nigh none of the measures that phone call themselves aggressive behavior measures focus solely on physically ambitious interpersonal behavior. Many include disruptiveness, acting out, and other forms of beliefs problems that are negative, only non necessarily ambitious.

^cIn that location were three universal programs that were delivered to unabridged classrooms, but certain children (those at take a chance) were selected for analysis. These were retained in the universal format category because the experiences of these children were more similar to the universal programs than the selected/indicated programs.

^dThere was just 1 routine practice program with a comprehensive format; thus, the routine do variable was not included in whatsoever analyses of comprehensive programs.

No financial conflict of interest was reported by the authors of this newspaper.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accustomed for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable course. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that use to the journal pertain.

References

ane. Gottfredson GD, Gottfredson DC, Czeh ER, Cantor D, Crosse S, Hantman I. National study of malversation prevention in schools. Ellicott City (Doctor): Gottfredson Associates, Inc.; 2000. Final Report, Grant No. 96-MU-MU-0008. Available from: world wide web.gottfredson.com. [Google Scholar]

2. Brener ND, Martindale J, Weist Doctor. Mental health and social services: results from the Schoolhouse Wellness Policies and Plan Study. J of Sch Wellness. 2001;71:305–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Wilson SJ, Lipsey MW, Derzon JH. The effects of schoolhouse-based intervention programs on ambitious and confusing behavior: a meta-analysis. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003;71:136–49. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Gottfredson DC, Gottfredson GD. Quality of school-based prevention programs: results from a national survey. J Res Crime Delinq. 2002;39:three–35. [Google Scholar]

5. Durlak JA. Schoolhouse-based prevention programs for children and adolescents. Yard Oaks: Sage; 1995. [Google Scholar]

6. Durlak JA. Chief prevention programs in schools. Adv Clin Kid Psych. 1997;19:283–318. [Google Scholar]

7. Gansle KA. The effectiveness of school-based anger interventions and programs. J Sch Psychol. 2005;43:321–341. [Google Scholar]

8. Lösel F, Beelmann A. Effects of child skill grooming in preventing antisocial behavior: a systematic review of randomized evaluations. Ann Am Acad Politician Soc Sci. 2003;587:84–109. [Google Scholar]

9. Sukhodolsky DG, Kassinove H, Gorman BS. Cognitive–behavioral therapy for anger in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. Beset Violent Beh. 2004;9:247–269. [Google Scholar]

x. Wilson DB, Gottfredson DC, Najaka SS. School-based prevention of problem behaviors: a meta-assay. J of Quantitative Criminology. 2001;17:247–272. [Google Scholar]

11. Hahn R, Fuqua-Whitley D, Wethington H, et al. Effectiveness of universal school-based programs to prevent violence: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2006 Under review. [Google Scholar]

12. Cohen J. Statistical power assay for the behavioral sciences. second. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. [Google Scholar]

13. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001. [Google Scholar]

14. Hedges LV, Olkin D. Statistical methods for meta-analyses. San Diego: Bookish Press; 1985. [Google Scholar]

15. Dolan LJ, Kellam SG, Brown CH, Werthamer-Larsson Fifty, Rebok GW, Mayer LS, Laudolff J, Turkkan JS, Ford C, Wheller L. The curt-term impact of two classroom-based preventive interventions on aggressive and shy behaviors and poor achievement. J Appl Dev Psychol. 1993;14:317–345. [Google Scholar]

xvi. Shure MB, Spivack Yard. Interpersonal problem solving equally a mediator of behavioral adjustment in preschool and kindergarten children. J Appl Dev Psychol. 1980;i:29–44. [Google Scholar]

17. Lochman JE, Wells KC. The Coping Power plan at the eye-school transition: universal and indicated prevention effects. Psychol Addict Behav. 2002;xvi 4:S40–S54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

eighteen. Gresham FM, Nagle RJ. Social skills training with children: responsiveness to modeling and coaching equally a part of peer orientation. J Consult Clin Psych. 1980;48:718–729. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

nineteen. Roseberry LL. An practical experimental evaluation of conflict resolution curriculum and social skills development [dissertation] Chicago (IL): Loyola Univ.; 1997. [Google Scholar]

xx. Nafpaktitis Chiliad, Perlmuter BF. School-based early mental health intervention with at-chance students. Schoolhouse Psychol Rev. 1998;27:420–432. [Google Scholar]

21. Bestland DE. A controlled experiment utilizing group counseling in 4 secondary schools in the Milwaukee public schools [dissertation] Milwaukee (WI): Marquette Univ.; 1968. [Google Scholar]

22. Miller PH. The relative effectiveness of peer mediation: children helping each other to solve conflicts [dissertation] Oxford (MI): Univ. of Mississippi; 1995. [Google Scholar]

23. Catalano RF, Mazza JJ, Harachi TW, Abbott RD, Haggerty KP, Fleming CB. Raising healthy children through enhancing social development in unproblematic schoolhouse: results after one.five years. J School Psychol. 2003;41:143–164. [Google Scholar]

24. Conduct Problems Prevention Inquiry Grouping. Initial touch on of the Fast Track prevention trial for conduct bug: I. the loftier-chance sample. J Consult Clin Psych. 1999;67:631–647. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Raudenbush SW. Random effects models. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors. The handbook of inquiry synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1994. pp. 301–21. [Google Scholar]

26. Weinstein RS, Soule CR, Collins R, Cone J, Mehlhorn M, Simontacchi Grand. Expectations and high school alter: teacher–researcher collaboration to forbid school failure. Am J Commun Psychol. 1991;xix:333–363. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Hudley CA. Assessing the bear upon of separate schooling for African-American male person adolescents. J Early on Adolescence. 1995;xv:38–57. [Google Scholar]

28. DeVoe JF, Peter K, Kaufman P, et al. Indicators of school crime and rubber: 2004. Washington: U S Departments of Education and Justice; 2004. NCES 2005-002/NCJ 205290. [Google Scholar]

pottersirstee.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2246021/

Share this post