Coping Power Dissemination Study: Intervention and Special Education Effects on Academic Outcomes

Abstract

This study examines whether a school-based preventive intervention for children with aggressive behavior affects children's academic outcomes when it is implemented by school counselors in a dissemination field trial. The Coping Power program targets empirical risk factors for aggressive behavior and focuses primarily on teaching social and emotional skills rather than directly intervening around academic performance. This study examined the long-term effects (2 years postintervention) of Coping Power on language arts and mathematics grades in 531 children from 57 schools. Prior analyses found that students of counselors who received intensive training in how to implement Coping Power (CP-IT) had broad improvements in teacher-rated social and academic skills and in teacher-, parent-, and self-reported externalizing behavior problems in comparison to children in a control group and to children whose counselor received more basic training in Coping Power (Lochman et al., 2009). In the present study, students with CP-IT counselors had smaller declines in language arts grades through a 2-year follow-up than children in the control group. Significant effects of CP-IT on mathematics grades were not observed. Special education status did not moderate intervention effects, indicating that special education students’ academic outcomes were affected in similar ways by the intervention in comparison with students not in special education. Intervention effects were not evident for children who had basic-trained counselors. These findings have implications for educational policy and underscore the potential for school-based social-emotional interventions such as Coping Power to have a long-term impact on children's academic outcomes.

Does a Booster Intervention Augment the Preventive Effects of an Abbreviated Version of the Coping Power Program for Aggressive Children?

“…Lochman (1992) found that aggressive boys had lower rates of self-reported substance use three years after involvement in the Anger Coping program. Although these latter findings from controlled trials are encouraging, the only long-term follow-up study of focused targeted prevention programs with an “unbiased” measure such as school records and blinded teacher ratings found that Coping Power children had lower teacher-rated aggression and academic problems (Lochman, Wells, Qu & Chen, in press), and less deterioration in language arts grades (Lochman, Boxmeyer, Powell, Qu, Wells & Windle, 2012) across time in comparison to a control condition in a three-year follow-up.…”

Testing the feasibility of a briefer school-based preventive intervention with aggressive children: A hybrid intervention with face-to-face and internet components

“…Coping Power is typically delivered in small groups, but individual delivery can produce stronger effects in the school setting for some children (Lochman et al, 2015). The intervention has helped to prevent the declines seen in control children in language arts grades in the two years following intervention (Lochman et al, 2012). Long-term follow-up effects, three to four years after the intervention, have been found on youths’ externalizing behavior in school settings in two separate studies (Lochman et al, 2013, 2014) and on substance use in a clinic setting (Zonnevylle-Bender et al, 2007).…”

Coping power for preschool‐aged children: a pilot randomized control trial study

“…16 Furthermore, CP has been developed for use at different levels of intervention: targeted prevention, universal prevention and clinical intervention levels. [17][18][19][20] The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of a preschool version of the CP universal curriculum utilizing a randomized clinical trial. The CP conceptual model, principles and practices were preserved, but the curriculum components were modified to be developmentally appropriate for preschool children.…”

“…Several studies documented CP effectiveness in reducing children's behavioural difficulties at school, as well as in reducing students' risk for later delinquency and substance use . Furthermore, CP has been developed for use at different levels of intervention: targeted prevention, universal prevention and clinical intervention levels . The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of a preschool version of the CP universal curriculum utilizing a randomized clinical trial.…”