Psychosocial Prevention Education: A Comparison of Traditional vs. Thematic Prevention Programming for Youth

Abstract

Aligning with a particular theoretical orientation or personal multi-theory integration is often a formidable task to entry-level counselors. A better understanding of how personal strengths and abilities fit with theoretical approaches may facilitate this process. To examine this connection, thirty-five mental health professionals completed a series of inventories to determine if passive counselors adhere to more nondirective, insight-oriented theories, while assertive counselors adhere to more directive, action-oriented approaches. Analyses revealed a significant difference between level of assertiveness and theoretical orientation, with action-oriented counselors demonstrating significantly higher levels of assertiveness than insight-oriented counselors. Implications for professional practice and counselor education are discussed.

Characteristics of effective small group social skill interventions in mainstream primary education: a systematic literature review

“…Four of the eleven studies included typically developing peers as role models for the target children in the group (Baker, Parks‐Savage and Rehfuss, 2009; Humphrey, Kalambouka, Wigelsworth et al, 2010a; Humphrey, Kalambouka, Wigelsworth et al, 2010b; Lane, Wehby, Menzies et al, 2003) with the remaining papers including only target children identified as requiring the intervention. Group sizes ranged from between four and six (Graham, Taylor and Hudley, 2015) to 11 (Newgent, Higgins, Belk et al, 2011) with the average being five to eight children (Baker et al, 2009; Berner, Fee and Turner, 2001; Knowler and Frederickson, 2013; Lane, Wehby, Menzies et al, 2003; Maddern, Franey, McLaughlin et al, 2004; Prince, Ho and Hansen, 2010). Three papers reported ‘small group’ delivery but did not specify the group size (Humphrey et al, 2010a, 2010b; Newgent, Behrend, Lounsbery et al, 2010).…”

“…A different intervention was explored in each study, with the exception of the PEGS programme, which was evaluated both in a stand‐alone efficacy trial (Newgent, Behrend, Lounsbery et al, 2010) and in comparison with the efficacy of the ARK (Newgent, Higgins, Belk et al, 2011). The interventions focused on a range of skills such as interpreting intentionality of behaviours and social cues (Graham, Taylor and Hudley, 2015), social problem‐solving skills (Berner, Fee and Turner, 2001; Maddern, Franey, McLaughlin et al, 2004; Newgent, Behrend, Lounsbery et al, 2010; Newgent, Higgins, Belk et al, 2011), cooperation (Baker, Parks‐Savage and Rehfuss, 2009; Lane, Wehby, Menzies et al, 2003; Maddern, Franey, McLaughlin et al, 2004; Newgent, Behrend, Lounsbery et al, 2010), assertiveness (Baker, Parks‐Savage and Rehfuss, 2009; Lane, Wehby, Menzies et al, 2003; Newgent, Behrend, Lounsbery et al, 2010; Newgent, Higgins, Belk et al, 2011), self‐esteem (Newgent, Behrend, Lounsbery et al, 2010; Newgent, Higgins, Belk et al, 2011), empathy (Baker, Parks‐Savage and Rehfuss, 2009; Knowler and Frederickson, 2013; Lane, Wehby, Menzies et al, 2003), self‐control (Baker, Parks‐Savage and Rehfuss, 2009; Lane, Wehby, Menzies et al, 2003), confidence and self‐efficacy (Humphrey, Kalambouka, Wigelsworth et al, 2010b) and self‐awareness and self‐regulation skills (Humphrey, Kalambouka, Wigelsworth et al, 2010a; Humphrey, Kalambouka, Wigelsworth et al, 2010b; Knowler and Frederickson, 2013; Maddern, Franey, McLaughlin et al, 2004).…”

“…Finally, there was a variation in the coherence between the target social skill and the outcome measures used; only three studies scored highly for this aspect of Weight of Evidence A (Graham, Taylor and Hudley, 2015; Newgent, Behrend, Lounsbery et al, 2010; Newgent, Higgins, Belk et al, 2011). The remaining papers used one measure to identify participants and another to measure outcomes, or had more tentative links between the social skill conceptualisation, measures and the intervention.…”

“…There was a wide variation in the methods used to select participants for the interventions across the studies; three studies employed sociometrics or peer rating (Baker, Parks‐Savage and Rehfuss, 2009; Graham, Taylor and Hudley, 2015; Knowler and Frederickson, 2013), four studies used teacher identification of children who met a descriptive criterion such as ‘those with few friends’ (Berner, Fee and Turner, 2001; Humphrey, Kalambouka, Wigelsworth et al, 2010a; Humphrey, Kalambouka, Wigelsworth et al, 2010b; Maddern, Franey, McLaughlin et al, 2004), two studies employed a teacher checklist (Graham, Taylor and Hudley, 2015; Lane, Wehby, Menzies et al, 2003), and three studies used a referral system (Newgent, Behrend, Lounsbery et al, 2010; Newgent, Higgins, Belk et al, 2011; Prince, Ho and Hansen, 2010). Interestingly, only Graham, Taylor and Hudley (2015) used multiple informants to select participants by collecting both teacher rating and peer nomination.…”

“…Interestingly, only Graham, Taylor and Hudley (2015) used multiple informants to select participants by collecting both teacher rating and peer nomination. All of the studies that utilised a referral system to select programme participants were located within the USA (Newgent, Behrend, Lounsbery et al, 2010; Newgent, Higgins, Belk et al, 2011; Prince, Ho and Hansen, 2010) where referral to a school‐based counsellor is common practice.…”