An experimentally designed comparison of four intensities of school-based prevention programs for adolescents with adjustment problems

Abstract

The effects of four different intensities of prevention programs (including no program at all) were compared in a field setting. Forty urban seventh graders with school adjustment problems were randomly assigned to one of three prevention programs or to a no program group. Half of the students participated for one hour on two mornings per week throughout the school year; the other half of the students participated in the afternoons. The results showed that program intensity had a significant effect upon grades and observed classroom behavior in the morning programs. No such effect occurred in the afternoon programs. The effects in the morning were preventive (versus rehabilitative) in nature. Only the most intense program, which included parent contact, had a greater effect than no program at all. The implications of these results for school‐based interventions are discussed.

Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention.

“…Parent involvement has been shown to be beneficial in improving academic effort, grades, and attendance of students evidencing low commitment to school (Bien & Bry, 1980; Blechman, Taylor, & Schrader, 1981). Bry (1982) reported a reduction in juvenile justice system involvement of experimental subjects receiving an intervention package consisting of (a) a parenting program involving regular contacts with the family emphasizing training and encouragement for parents to reward school progress, (b) teacher goal setting for students, and (c) a schedule of rewards for students' goal attainment.…”

Developmental factors in the treatment on adolescents.

“…For teen treatments that are not designed to include parents or family, one might ask whether outcomes improve when parents or family are involved in some way (e.g., attending therapist briefings, helping the teen with therapy homework). This has been found to be true in treatment for school behavior problems (Bien & Bry, 1980), anxiety disorders (Kendall, 1994; Kendall et al, 1997, before Bonferroni correction), and obesity (Lansky & Vance, 1983); we did not find studies showing otherwise.…”

“…Some 22 (19.2%) of our 114 studies incorporated the school context in some manner. Most often, school personnel helped to deliver interventions (e.g., Bien & Bry, 1980; De Fries, Jenkins, & Williams, 1964; Kahn, Kehle, Jenson, & Clark, 1990; Lowenstein, 1982; Marlowe, Madsen, Bowen, Reardon, & Logue, 1978) or provided feedback on the treated youngsters' behavior at school (e.g., Bank, Marlowe, Reid, Patterson, & Weinrott, 1991; Brown, Wynne, & Medenis, 1985; Chamberlain & Reid, 1991, 1998; Henggeler et al, 1992). Others involved schools by teaching coping skills that teens could use in stressful school situations, such as moral reasoning for dilemmas they might face (e.g., Arbuthnot & Gordon, 1986), problem-solving skills for difficulties with peers and teachers (e.g., Kazdin et al, 1989), or strategies for dealing with authority conflict (e.g., Spence & Marzillier, 1981).…”

“Congratulations, You Have Been Randomized Into the Control Group!(?)”: Issues to Consider When Recruiting Schools for Matched‐Pair Randomized Control Trials of Prevention Programs

“…An assumption that schools will simply acquiesce to their randomly assigned condition has the potential to backfire. Schools may not want to participate in an MP‐RCT, for example, because they may prefer to self‐select their conditions 18 . In this regard, some schools may prefer to be in the treatment condition because they desire a program that promises to bring immediate benefits to their students 13,19 .…”