1014 - R Interventie Pe Agresivitate PDF

Campbell Systematic Reviews
2006:6
First published: 16 March, 2006
Last updated:
16 March, 2006
The Effects of School-Based

Social Information
Processing Interventions on
Aggressive Behavior, Part II:
Selected/Indicated Pull-Out
Programs
Sandra Jo Wilson, Mark W. Lipsey
Colophon
Title
Institution
Authors
DOI
No. of pages
Last updated
Citation
Copyright
The effects of school-based social information processing interventions on

aggressive behavior, part II: Selected/Indicated Pull-out Programs
The Campbell Collaboration
Wilson, Sandra Jo
Lipsey, Mark W.
10.4073/csr.2006.6
37
16 March, 2006
Wilson SJ, Lipsey M. The effects of school-based social information
processing interventions on aggressive behavior, part II: Selected/Indicated
Pull-out Programs.
Campbell Systematic Reviews 2006:6
DOI: 10.4073/csr.2006.6
Wilson et al.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are
credited.
Keywords
Contributions
Support/Funding
Potential Conflicts
of Interest
Corresponding
author
None stated.
The National Institute of Mental Health, USA
The National Institute of Justice, USA
William T. Grant Foundation, USA
Laboratory for Student Success, Center for Research in Human Development
and Education, Temple University USA
None.
Sandra Jo Wilson
Center for Evaluation Research and Methodology
Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies
Vanderbilt University
1207 18th Ave. South
Nashville, TN 37212
USA
Telephone: +1 615 343 7215
E-mail: sandra.j.wilson@vanderbilt.edu
Campbell Systematic Reviews

Editors-in-Chief
Mark W. Lipsey, Vanderbilt University, USA

Arild Bjrndal, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services &
University of Oslo, Norway
Editors
Crime and Justice
Education
Social Welfare
Managing Editor
David B. Wilson, George Mason University, USA

Chad Nye, University of Central Florida, USA
Ralf Schlosser, Northeastern University, USA
Julia Littell, Bryn Mawr College, USA
Geraldine Macdonald, Queens University, UK & Cochrane Developmental,
Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group
Karianne Thune Hammerstrm, The Campbell Collaboration
Editorial Board
Crime and Justice
Education
Social Welfare
Methods
David Weisburd, Hebrew University, Israel & George Mason University, USA
Peter Grabosky, Australian National University, Australia
Carole Torgerson, University of York, UK
Aron Shlonsky, University of Toronto, Canada
Therese Pigott, Loyola University, USA
Peter Tugwell, University of Ottawa, Canada
The Campbell Collaboration (C2) was founded on the principle that
systematic reviews on the effects of interventions will inform and help
improve policy and services. C2 offers editorial and methodological support to
review authors throughout the process of producing a systematic review. A
number of C2's editors, librarians, methodologists and external peerreviewers contribute.
The Campbell Collaboration
P.O. Box 7004 St. Olavs plass
0130 Oslo, Norway
www.campbellcollaboration.org
Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs
The Effects of School-based Social Information Processing

Interventions on Aggressive Behavior:
Part II: Selected/Indicated Pull-out Programs
March 13, 2006
__________
Reviewers
Sandra Jo Wilson and Mark W. Lipsey
Center for Evaluation Research and Methodology
Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies
1207 18th Ave. South
Nashville, TN 37212 USA
Tel: 615-343-7215
Fax: 615-322-8081
Email: sandra.j.wilson@vanderbilt.edu
This work is a Campbell Collaboration systematic review and was supported by grants from the
National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Justice, the William T. Grant
Foundation, and the Laboratory for Student Success at the Temple University Center for
Research in Human Development and Education.
Contents
Background for the Review .................................................................. 5
Social Information Processing................................................................ 5
Social Information Processing Programs ............................................... 6
What Social Information Processing Program are Not ........................... 7
Selected and Indicated Prevention ......................................................... 7
Prior Research on Social Skills Interventions......................................... 8
Objective of the Review ............................................................... 8

Methods of the Review ................................................................ 8
Criteria for Including Studies in the Review ........................................... 8
Interventions................................................................................... 8
Settings and Subjects....................................................................... 9
Outcomes ........................................................................................ 9
Study Design.................................................................................... 9
Search Strategy and Identification of Studies ......................................... 9
Selection of Studies ............................................................................... 11
Data Management and Extraction ........................................................ 12
Statistical Procedures........................................................................... 12
Findings .....................................................................................13
Description of Eligible Studies...............................................................13
Mean Effects of Universal Social Information Processing Programs..... 16
Analysis of Moderator Effects............................................................... 18
The Relationship of Method to Effect Size...................................... 18
The Relationship of Other Study Characteristics to Effect Size....... 19
Moderators of Observed Effects..................................................... 22
Conclusions .............................................................................. 23
Plans for Updating .................................................................... 24
Conflict of Interest .................................................................... 24
References ................................................................................ 25
Studies Included in the Systematic Review ............................... 27
Appendix....................................................................................31
List of Tables
Table 1: Characteristics of Studies............................................................. 14
Table 2: Zero-order Correlations between Study Method Characteristics
and Aggressive Behavior Effect Sizes ........................................................ 19
Table 3: Relationships between Study Characteristics and Aggressive
Behavior Effect Sizes with Method Variables Controlled ........................... 21
Table 4: Regression Model for Effect Size Moderators for Selected and
Indicated Social Information Processing Programs .................................. 22
Table A1: Method Variables by Study......................................................... 32
Table A2: General Characteristics and Subject Variables by Study ............ 34
Table A3: Treatment Characteristics by Study ........................................... 36
List of Figures
Post-treatment Effect Sizes and Confidence Intervals for Aggressive and
Disruptive Behavior Outcomes ..................................................................17
Background for the Review

While the primary role of schools is to provide academic instruction, they are also one of
the primary institutions through which we socialize our children. One aspect of this
socializing role involves the prevention of aggressive or violent behavior. Over 75% of
U.S. schools use some sort of prevention curriculum to deal with behavior problems;
and many schools use more than one prevention strategy (Gottfredson, Gottfredson,
Czeh, Cantor, Crosse, & Hantman, 2000). Most school-based prevention programs are
universal programs. That is, they are implemented on a school-wide basis or delivered
to entire classes of students regardless of the risk status of the student participants. In
addition to these universal efforts, schools often intervene with individual students who
are aggressive or violent or they target at-risk students for special prevention efforts.
These types of interventions for specially selected students are called selected or
indicated prevention programs (Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994).
Selected and indicated prevention involves targeting prevention efforts on particular
students. Selected interventions are delivered to students who are specially selected for
treatment by virtue of the presence of some risk factor (such as activity level) that is
thought to be associated with later violent or aggressive behavior. Indicated
interventions also involve targeting for certain students, but focus on children who are
already exhibiting the targeted behavior (e.g., aggression, violence). Most of these
programs are delivered to the selected children outside of their regular classrooms (and
may use either group or individual formats).
There are many prevention strategies from which school administrators might choose
for at-risk or problem behavior students (see, for example, Gottfredson, et al., 2000).
One set of overlapping strategies used in school settings focuses on students social
information processing difficulties. This review examines studies of the effectiveness of
programs aimed at improving social information processing for reducing aggressive
behavior. The following section will briefly review the social information processing
framework and describe the programs that fall under this framework.
Social Information Processing
The programs included in this systematic review all attempt to improve one or more
aspects of students social information processing. Under this intervention model, social
behavior is the result of six interrelated steps: (1) encoding situational and internal cues,
(2) interpretation of cues, (3) selecting or clarifying a goal, (4) generating or accessing
possible responses, (5) choosing a response, (6) and behavioral enactment (Dodge;
1986; Crick & Dodge, 1994). Negative social behavior such as aggression is thought to be
the result of cognitive deficits at one or more of these stages.1 For some children, the
inability to process social information results in inappropriate behavioral responses and
aggressive children tend to differ from non-aggressive children in various stages of
1
We recognize that social information processing deficits are one of many likely correlates of aggressive interpersonal
behavior and that the perpetration of aggression by individual students is determined by an array of interrelated
individual, family, social, and environmental processes. The discussion of social information processing deficits here
is not meant to provide an exhaustive discussion of the causes of aggressive behavior. Rather it is intended to provide
the reader with a brief background on the rationale behind the interventions that are examined in this review.
social information processing (Dodge, Pettit, McClaskey, & Brown, 1986; Kendall, 1995).
To illustrate, deficits at the encoding or interpretation stage of processing may involve
misinterpreting as hostile the intent of others in neutral or ambiguous social situations.
Hostile misattributions have been linked to aggressive responses (Crick & Dodge, 1994).
And, aggressive children are more likely to make hostile attributions than their nonaggressive peers (Slaby & Guerra, 1988). Deficits at the goal selection or clarification
stage can result in the selection of antisocial rather than prosocial goals (Asher &
Renshaw, 1981; Crick & Dodge, 1989). Children who have difficulty accessing or
evaluating responses to social situations (Steps 4 and 5) tend to have fewer responses
from which to choose in social situations and may fail to evaluate the consequences of
particular behaviors (e.g., Mize & Cox, 1990; Spivack & Shure, 1974).
Social Information Processing Programs
Some of the earliest programs designed to address social information processing deficits
were the social problem solving programs developed in the 1970s (e.g., DZurilla &
Goldfried, 1971; Shure & Spivack, 1972; 1979). These programs were designed to
improve social behavior by teaching cognitively-based problem solving skills. For
example, the I Can Problem Solve program (Shure, 1992) involves teaching participants
a series of problem solving skills that includes perspective taking, alternative response
generation, consequential or means-ends thinking, and causal thinking.
In more recent years, many variations on this theme have been developed (Coleman,
Wheeler, & Webber, 1993). Attribution retraining programs, such as Hudleys
BrainPower (Hudley, 1991) program, focus on the early stages of the social information
processing model and teach children to accurately detect intentionality, to make
nonhostile attributions when social encounters are ambiguous, and to generate
appropriate behavioral responses to ambiguous negative situations. Lochmans Anger
Coping program (Lochman, Lampron, Burch, & Curry, 1985) includes a module that
helps children learn cognitive goal-setting skills, a social problem solving component,
and a module on anger control (which focuses on the emotional aspects of social
information processing).
While these are examples of some typical social information processing programs, a
conceptual definition of the programs in general is necessary for conducting the
proposed systematic review. This definition aids in identifying candidate programs for
the review and in coding the particular treatment components of each program. For
purposes of this review, therefore, a social information processing program is one with
the following distinct characteristics:
1. The program involves training in one or more of the social information
processing steps: (1) encoding situational and internal cues, (2) interpretation of
cues, (3) selecting or clarifying a goal, (4) generating or accessing possible
responses, (5) choosing a response, (6) and behavioral enactment.
2. The program emphasizes cognitive skills or thinking processes rather than
specific behavioral skills. By teaching generic thinking skills, such programs aim
to improve information processing in myriad social situations.
3. The program involves the use of structured tasks and activities through which the
cognitive skills are learned and applied to actual social situations.
What Social Information Processing Programs are Not

Another set of popular programming strategies also focuses on social competence. These
programs, often called by the generic term behavioral social skills, are distinct from the
social information processing programs that are the focus of this review. Behavioral
social skills curricula focus primarily on the social (or antisocial) behaviors themselves,
rather than the underlying cognitive thought processes. These programs generally teach
specific skills such as making eye contact, smiling in context, paying compliments,
communication skills, group entry skills, assertiveness, and the like (see Goldstein &
Pentz, 1984 for a review).
In addition, there are other cognitively-oriented programs that do not specifically target
social information processing. For example, programs for children with attention or
activity level difficulties often involve teaching skills for cognitive impulse control.
Similarly, there are cognitively oriented programs for dealing with stress, divorce,
depression, etc. (e.g., Alpert-Gillis, Pedro-Carroll, & Cowen, 1987; Lewinsohn, Clarke,
Hops, & Andrews, 1990). While these other cognitive programs focus on thinking skills,
they do not have the focus on interpersonal relationships that is characteristic of social
information processing programs.
Selected and Indicated Prevention
Programs that address social information processing difficulties tend to be structured
and have detailed lesson plans, which make them attractive to schools. These programs
are also easily delivered by teachers or school psychologists and can be used in different
formats (group or individual) and settings (classrooms or out-of-class school facilities).
Our original intent for this systematic review was to include all research studies of social
information processing programs delivered in school settings. As we began collecting
the relevant research literature, however, we discovered that the programs were
delivered using several different approaches to prevention. In particular, social
information processing programs are sometimes delivered universally to all students
and, other times, only to specially selected at-risk or behavior problem students. That is,
social information processing programs can be universal, selected, or indicated (Mrazek
& Haggerty, 1994). Universal prevention interventions are delivered in classroom
settings to an entire classroom without regard to the risk level or degree of behavior
problems among students in the classroom. Selected and indicated prevention
interventions target children who are exhibiting risk factors (such as anger or
hyperactivity) or children who are already showing early signs of disorder (i.e., behavior
problems). The studies of social information processing programs that focus on
universal prevention, of course, tend to have different student subjects than studies of
programs that focus on youth selected or indicated on the basis of various risk factors.
In addition to the differences in the subject samples in universal versus selected or
indicated programs, we noticed that there were other important differences between the
two prevention approaches, most notably in study procedure and method. Nearly all of
the studies of programs delivered under the selected/indicated approach used random
assignment of individual subjects to produce treatment and comparison groups, while
only a few studies of universal programs used individual randomization. Based on these
differences in study and subject characteristics, and the possibility that these factors
might be associated with study outcomes, we elected to conduct two separate systematic
reviews. The review presented here focuses solely on selected and indicated social
information processing programs delivered in school settings. A second review focuses
on school-based universal social information processing programs (Wilson & Lipsey,
forthcoming).
Prior Research on Social Skills Interventions
Several recent narrative reviews of social skills interventions are available (Clayton,
Ballif-Spanvill, & Hunsaker, 2001; Howard, Flora, & Griffin, 1999; Moote, Smyth, &
Wodarski, 1999; Nangle, Erdley, Carpenter, & Newman, 2002) but these cover social
skills interventions quite broadly by including training in social skills, friendship making
skills, communication skills, and other such social behaviors without an explicit focus on
altering cognitive and social information processing deficits. A few narrative reviews of
programs specific to social information processing have also been conducted (e.g.,
Coleman, Wheeler, & Webber, 1993; Pellegrini & Urbain, 1985), but these are somewhat
dated and also include programs delivered to clinical populations in non-school settings.
Several meta-analysis of related interventions are available (e.g., Beelmann, Pfingsten, &
Lsel, 1994; Denham & Almeida, 1987; Lsel & Beelmann, 2003; Mytton, DiGuiseppi,
Gough, Taylor, & Logan, 2002; Quinn, Kavale, Mathur, Rutherford, & Forness, 1999;
Schneider & Byrne, 1985). Like the narrative reviews, but with the exception of Denham
and Almeida (1987), these syntheses focus on social competence programs in general
and thus include both social information processing and behavioral social skills
programs. The Denham and Almeida meta-analysis focuses exclusively on interpersonal
cognitive problem solving interventions, but is 15 years old and does not include
international studies.
Objective of the Review

This review examines the effects of school-based social information processing
interventions on the aggressive and disruptive behavior of school-age children
specifically targeted for attention because they are judged to be at risk for such behavior
(selected) or already engaged in early versions of such behavior (indicated). Program
effects are examined overall and in relation to methodological and substantive
differences across studies.
Methods of the Review

Criteria for Including Studies in the Review
Interventions. The interventions were required to meet the three criteria that define
social information processing programs. Although other treatment components were
allowed to be present (e.g., behavioral social skills training, parenting skills training),
the social information processing component needed to be the clear focus of the
program. The definitional criteria are as follows:
1. Training was provided on one or more of the social information processing steps:
(1) encoding situational and internal cues, (2) interpretation of cues, (3) selecting
or clarifying a goal, (4) generating or accessing possible responses, (5) choosing a

response, (6) and behavioral enactment.
2. Cognitive skills or thinking processes were emphasized rather than specific
behavioral skills.
3. Structured tasks and activities were used to teach cognitive skills and their
application to actual social situations.
Settings and Subjects. The interventions had to be delivered to school-aged children (K12 or equivalent ages in international settings) in regular school settings during school
hours. Moreover, the intervention had to be delivered to children who were specially
selected for treatment by virtue of any risk factor linked to later antisocial behavior or
for evident behavior problems. Special education classrooms and alternative schools
were eligible school settings, although classrooms in residential facilities (e.g.,
psychiatric hospitals) were not. After-school programs were not eligible. Any qualifying
school in any region or country was eligible.
Outcomes. The study reported intervention effects for at least one outcome variable,
measured on children, representing aggressive behavior, broadly defined to include
violence, aggression, fighting, person crimes, disruptive behavior problems, acting out,
conduct disorder, externalizing problems, and so forth.
Study Design. Only studies using a control group design were eligible. The intervention
and control groups could be randomly or nonrandomly assigned but, if nonrandom,
needed to be matched or provide evidence of initial equivalence on key demographic
variables and/or pretests. Control groups could represent placebo, wait-list, no
treatment, or treatment as usual conditions. Studies without control or comparison
groups were not eligible. This included one-group pretest-posttest studies and studies in
which a treatment condition was compared to another treatment condition.
Search Strategy for Identification of Studies
An attempt was made to identify and retrieve the entire population of empirical studies
that met the eligibility criteria specified above, including both published and
unpublished studies. Several sources were used to identify potentially eligible research
reports. First, a large database compiled at the Center for Evaluation Research and
Methodology with NIMH grant funding (Lipsey, PI) was searched for eligible
interventions. That database includes studies of early intervention programs targeting a
wide range of risk factors for antisocial behavior and includes many school-based
programs.
In addition, a comprehensive search of bibliographic databases, including Psychological
Abstracts, Dissertation Abstracts International, ERIC (Educational Resources
Information Center), the Campbell and Cochrane Collaboration trials registers, U.S.
Government Printing Office publications, National Criminal Justice Reference Service,
and MedLine was conducted, with a special focus on recent studies not included in the
existing database.
10
The search strategy utilized three categories of search terms2 derived from the
controlled vocabulary used to index articles for each specific database. Wildcard
characters were used to identify variants of words (e.g., delinquen* to locate delinquent,
delinquents, and delinquency). Within each category described below, search terms are
connected by the OR operator; the results for each of the three categories were
combined with the AND operator:
1. The population of interest: child, adolescent, childhood (MEDLINE); children,
adolescents, preadolescents, students (ERIC); children, adolescents, students
(PsychInfo), and children, adolescents, students (Sociological Abstracts);
2. Risks or outcomes: social adjustment, interpersonal relations, social interaction,
social isolation, aggression, juvenile delinquency, peer group, attention deficit
and disruptive behavior disorders, hyperkinesis, cultural deprivation,
interpersonal relations, social environment, social behavior, child behavior
disorders, social problems, antisocial personality disorder, conduct disorder,
dangerous behavior, social alienation, conflict, hostility, violence, reactive
attachment disorders, impulsive behavior, problem solving (MEDLINE); social
environment, social integration, social adjustment, social attitudes, social
experience, social characteristics, attachment behavior, antisocial behavior,
adjustment, aggression, delinquency, attention deficit disorders, hyperactivity, at
risk persons, high risk students, educationally disadvantaged, problem children,
dropouts, social influences, behavior disorders, behavior problems, youth
problems, conflict, hostility, truancy, violence, peer relations, peer influences
(ERIC); interpersonal influences, interpersonal interaction, social skills, social
development, social networks, acting out, adjustment disorders, aggressive
behavior, juvenile delinquency, predelinquent youth, attention deficit disorder,
hyperkinesis, at risk populations, runaway behavior, school dropouts,
disadvantaged, social deprivation, cultural deprivation, peer relations, reference
groups, behavior disorders, behavior problems, antisocial behavior, conduct
disorder, conflict, hostility, truancy, oppositional defiant disorder, impulsiveness,
arguments (PsychInfo); adjustment, social dynamics, social participation, social
behavior, social attitudes, social competence, social development, social learning,
social isolation, juvenile delinquency, social background, disadvantaged, peer
relations, peer influence, behavior problems, interpersonal conflict, conflict,
violence, deviant behavior (Sociological Abstracts);
3. Treatment/evaluations: social problem solving, social information processing,
counseling, intervention, prevention and control, preventive, therapy,
psychotherapy, social control, behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, treatment
outcome, program evaluation, behavioral assessment, randomized controlled
trials, pilot projects, clinical trial, meta-analysis (MEDLINE); behavior change,
counseling, prevention, therapy, intervention, social services, social support
groups, youth programs, enrichment activities, guidance programs, improvement
programs, school community programs, outcomes of treatment, program
evaluation, program effectives, program validation, summative evaluation, metaanalysis (ERIC); social problem solving, social information processing, cognitivebehavioral, social cognition, behavior modification, counseling, intervention,
2
Use of a fourth class is widely discouraged by librarians specializing in research techniques because of the
significantly increased likelihood that desired items are excluded when conformity across four categories is required.
11
early intervention, prevention, psychotherapeutic outcomes, therapy, training,

social programs, compensatory education, treatment outcomes, program
evaluation, behavioral assessment, treatment effectiveness evaluation,
educational program evaluation, meta-analysis (PsychInfo); behavior
modification, counseling, intervention, prevention, therapy, training, treatment,
social programs, educational programs, treatment outcomes, evaluation,
effectiveness, quantitative analysis.
Third, the bibliographies of previous meta-analyses and literature reviews (e.g., Denham
& Almeida, 1987; Durlak, 1997) were inspected for studies that met the eligibility
criteria. In addition, the bibliographies of retrieved studies were themselves examined
for potentially eligible research reports. Finally, follow-up searches on the first and
second authors of all eligible studies and cited reference searches of eligible articles in
the Social Sciences Citation Index were conducted. We have found this forward
searching technique to be more efficient and fruitful than conducting hand searches of
journal issues.
Studies identified through our searches were retrieved from the library, obtained via
interlibrary loan, or requested directly from the author(s). In addition, we attempted to
locate and include any eligible studies published in non-English language sources that
were missed by the search strategies described above by asking colleagues from both
inside and outside the U.S. to assist us with locating foreign-language studies.
Selection of Studies
Abstracts of the studies found through the search procedures were screened for
relevance. Documents that were not obviously ineligible or irrelevant (based on the
abstract review) were retrieved from the Vanderbilt University Libraries, Interlibrary
Loan, ERIC, University Microfilms, and government documents sources for final
eligibility screening. Final determination of eligibility for all studies irrespective of
source was made from the full study report document(s) on the basis of detailed
eligibility criteria. The abstract screening and eligibility determination were performed
by the first author or a trained research assistant. Any ambiguities or questions about
eligibility were resolved through discussion by both authors.
Although some research suggests that two reviewers might increase accuracy in
identifying potentially eligible studies from abstracts obtained through bibliographic
searches (Edwards, et al., 2002), our experience is that most abstracts do not provide
enough detail to allow reviewers to make reliable judgments about whether a study
meets the review criteria. Thus, we reviewed abstracts mainly to eliminate those clearly
irrelevant and deferred the final determination until the entire study report was
screened. While this required retrieving many more documents than eventually ended
up in the review, it allowed us to make eligibility decisions based on the most complete
information about a study that was available.
12
Data Management and Extraction

The coding protocol used for this project allowed for coding a wide variety of study
characteristics, as well as study results. The standardized mean difference effect size
statistic (Cohen, 1988; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001) was used to record intervention effects.
This effect size statistic is defined as the difference between the treatment and control
group means on an outcome variable divided by their pooled standard deviations. When
means and standard deviations were not available, effect sizes were estimated from the
statistics that were reported using the procedures described in Lipsey and Wilson
(2001). Typically, studies reported results on multiple outcome constructs (e.g.,
aggression, social skills, school achievement) and often included more than one
operationalization of the same construct (e.g., parent and teacher reports of aggressive
behavior). For purposes of this systematic review, all effect sizes that assessed aggressive
or disruptive behavior outcomes that could be extracted from a study were coded.
Procedures for maintaining statistical independence during analysis in cases of multiple
effect sizes will be discussed in the next section.
In addition to effect size values, information was coded for each study that describes the
methods and procedures, the intervention, and the subject samples. The items
describing study methods and procedures include details of the design, measures, and
attrition. Those coded to describe the subject samples include age, gender, ethnicity,
socioeconomic status, and risk for later antisocial behavior. The interventions were
described by coding the details of specific program components; duration, intensity,
setting, and format of the program; delivery personnel; and, other such characteristics.
All study coding was done on computer screens configured in FileMaker Pro for direct
entry into the database. All coding was completed either by the first author or by trained
research assistants. Any study coded by a research assistant was reviewed for accuracy
by the first author. Any discrepancies or ambiguities in coding were resolved by the two
authors.
Statistical Procedures
Effect sizes based on small samples are known to be biased; to adjust for this, all effect
sizes were multiplied by the small sample correction factor, 1 (3/4n-9), where n is the
sample size for the study (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). Also, each effect size was weighted by
its inverse variance in all computations so that its contribution was proportionate to its
reliability (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). Examination of the effect size distribution identified
a small number of outlier effect sizes with potential to distort the analysis; these were
recoded (i.e., Winsorized) to less extreme values (Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Lipsey &
Wilson, 2001). These adjustments retain the effect sizes in the analysis with relatively
extreme values, but make those values less extreme so that they do not exercise highly
disproportionate influence on the analysis results.3
Note that the sample sizes used in the inverse variance weights were not Winsorized for this review (though they
were Winsorized in the companion review of universal programs) because there were no extreme sample size outliers
among the included studies.
13
The intervention outcome of principal interest was aggressive and disruptive behavior,
which involves a variety of negative interpersonal behaviors including fighting, hitting,
bullying, verbal conflict, disruptiveness, acting out and the like.4 The most common type
of measure was a teacher-report questionnaire, though many studies provided results
for more than one aggressive behavior outcome. To create sets of independent effect size
estimates for analysis, only one effect size from each subject sample was used in any
analysis. The procedures for selecting an independent set of effect sizes are described
below.
Finally, many studies provided data sufficient for calculating mean difference effect
sizes on the outcome variables measured at the pretest. In cases where pretest effect
sizes were available, we adjusted the posttest effect sizes for pretest differences by
subtracting the pretest value from the posttest value. In the analyses presented below,
we tested whether there were systematic differences between effect sizes that were
adjusted and those that were not by including dummy codes for adjustment in the
analyses.
Findings
Description of Eligible Studies
The search strategy identified 68 eligible reports, which reported the results of 47
unique research studies. Some eligible studies were reported in multiple reports, while
some reports presented results for multiple independent studies. In addition, when the
results of a study were reported for subgroups (e.g., male and female results were
reported separately), we coded the two subgroups rather than the aggregate and treated
them as two studies. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the 47 selected and
indicated social information processing programs included in this review. Coding details
for each of the 47 studies can be found in the Appendix.
Nearly 90 percent of the studies were conducted in the United States, and slightly over
half were published in peer reviewed journals. Studies were published from the 1970s to
the present, with most programs in the 1980s and 1990s. As would be expected with
populations at risk for aggressive behavior, the samples were predominantly male. Age
ranged from six to 16, with 45% of the samples in the nine to eleven year range. In the
United States, nine to eleven year olds are typically in upper elementary school, between
the 4th and 6th grades. Among the studies that reported the ethnicity for their subject
samples, over half were comprised primarily of minority youth. Forty percent of the
studies were conducted with predominantly low income populations. In terms of the
risk status of student participants, 32% of the studies focused on selected groups and
64% focused on indicated groups. There were two studies with very low risk children.
They are included here because the children were specially selected and pulled out of
their regular classrooms for treatment.
4
Ideally, we would have examined program effects only on aggressive behavior. However, almost none of the
measures called aggressive behavior focus solely on physically aggressive interpersonal behavior. Many include
disruptiveness, acting out, and other forms of behavior problems that are negative, but not necessarily aggressive.
Therefore, our outcome variable includes a broader range of negative behaviors than just aggression and includes
both aggressive and disruptive behaviors.
14
Table 1: Characteristics of Studies (n=47)

Characteristic
N
%
Characteristic
Publication Year
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
3
19
12
13
6
40
26
28
Gender Mix
No males (<5%)
50-60% male
Mostly males (>60%)
All males (>95%)
1
12
20
14
2
26
43
30
Form of Publication
Unpublished
Published (peer review)
21
26
45
55
Age
6-8 years
9-11 years
12-16 years
10
21
16
21
45
34
Country of Study
USA
Canada
Finland
Australia
Israel
India
41
2
1
1
1
1
87
4
2
2
2
2
Race/Ethnicity (Predominant)
White
13
Black
15
Hispanic
2
Asian
1
Mixed
2
Cannot tell
14
28
32
4
2
4
30
Group Assignment
Random (individual)
Random (group, class)
Non-random (individual)
Non-random (group, class)
35
5
4
3
74
11
9
6
Socioeconomic Status
Predominantly low
Mixed, full range
Predominantly middle
Cannot tell
19
6
10
12
40
13
21
26
Pretest Adjustment
Yes
No
41
6
87
13
Risk for Antisocial behavior

General, very low risk
2
At-risk, selected
15
Antisocial, indicated
30
4
32
64
Role of evaluator
Delivered treatment
Supervised delivery
Influential, but no delivery
21
25
1
45
53
2
Routine Practice Program

Research program
41
Demonstration program
5
Routine practice program
1
87
11
2
Implementation Problems
Yes
9
None indicated
38
11
81
Attrition
None
3-10%
11%
21
11
15
Sample Size (tx + control)

Up to 30
19
31-60
19
61-86
9
Timing of Posttest
Immediate post-tx
2-52 weeks
Informant
Teacher
Archival report
Self-report
Observation
Parent report
38
9
34
5
4
3
1
45
23
32
40
40
19
81
19
72
11
9
6
2
Role of Program Developer in Study

PI is program developer
26
55
PI modified other program
16
34
Developer not affiliated
5
11
continued
Table 1 (continued): Characteristics of Studies (n=47)

Characteristic
N
%
Characteristic
Treatment Site
Regular education school
Special ed. school/class
42
5
89
11
Delivery Personnel
Researcher
Researcher + school pers.
Non-research personnel
Graduate students
14
12
11
10
30
26
23
21
13
25
28
12
13
28
53
60
26
28
20
16
8
3
43
34
17
6
Treatment Elements*
General cognitive-behavioral
Anger management
Social problem solving
Perspective taking
Behavior modification
*not mutually exclusive
Duration of Treatment
Up to 8 weeks
9-16 weeks
17-34 weeks
1 school year or more
15
Number of Sessions per Week

Less than weekly
2
Once per week
22
1-2x per week
2
Twice per week
15
2-3x per week
1
3x per week
2
3-4x per week
1
Daily (5x per week)
2
Format*
Group format
Individual format
*not mutually exclusive
42
7
%
4
47
4
32
2
4
2
4
89
10
The majority (74%) of studies used random assignment of individual students to create
treatment and comparison groups. Eighty-seven percent of the studies presented pretest
results on the outcome variable, which allowed us to adjust for any pretest differences
between groups at the effect size level.5 Overall, the average pretest effect size was not
significantly different from zero, indicating the treatment and comparison groups had
equivalent levels of aggressive behavior before treatment began. In addition, the
random and nonrandom assignment studies were not significantly different at the
pretest.
Only one program was coded as a routine practice program (administered by school
personnel as an ongoing school program). The remaining programs were conducted
primarily for research or demonstration purposes. Correspondingly, the program
evaluators/researchers tended to be involved in treatment delivery or supervision of
delivery personnel. In 55% of the studies, the primary researcher developed the program
under study, while there were only 5 studies in which the program developer was not
involved in the research project. For just over a third of the studies, program developers
were not involved, but the primary researchers modified the program. We believe this
may engender some ownership in the program; in a sense, the researcher becomes a
program developer as a result of modifying an existing program. In addition, because
most of the programs had heavy researcher involvement in treatment delivery and
We could not adjust five studies for pretest differences because pretest results on the outcome variable were not
provided. Four of these studies used random assignment at the individual student level. For the one quasiexperimental study lacking pretest results, the researcher stated that there were no significant differences on pretest
measures prior to treatment.
16
program administration, there were few studies (9) in which implementation problems
were reported.
Programs were mainly conducted using group formats in regular schools, though seven
programs were either solely one-on-one or included individual as well as group sessions.
Five programs were conducted with special education students. Treatment duration
ranged from short programs of less than 8 weeks to those lasting one school year or
more. The majority of programs had sessions once or twice a week. Since students were
typically pulled out of their regular classrooms to meet for treatment, it is not surprising
that most programs could only arrange sessions once or twice a week. A range of
delivery personnel was utilized, with most having some affiliation with the researchers.
Finally, Table 1 shows the frequency of the different types of social information
processing interventions utilized. Most programs involved more than one aspect of
social information processing, and 13 also included a behavior modification component.
Mean Effects of Selected and Indicated Social Information Processing
Programs
The 47 eligible studies generated a total of 120 standardized mean difference effect sizes
on aggressive or disruptive behavior; these effect sizes index the posttreatment
differences between the treatment and comparison groups. Most studies (32) generated
more than one effect size (ranging from two to nine), while 15 studies provided only a
single effect size. The multiple measures of aggressive and disruptive behavior within
studies were either different aspects of aggressive behavior (e.g., physical and nonphysical aggression) or were the same type of aggressive behavior reported by different
informants.
To create a set of independent effect sizes for analysis, a combination of procedures was
used. When studies reported results on different types of aggressive behavior, we
selected the effect size(s) that most closely represented interpersonal physical
aggression and discarded the others. Next, we wanted to retain informant as a variable
for analysis, so did not elect to average across effect sizes from different informants
when more than one was reported. If there was more than one effect size from the same
informant or source, however, their mean value was used. Then, from the studies with
multiple effect sizes reported by different informants, one effect size was selected from
the informant that was most frequently represented in the data. In this case, teachers
were the most common informants, followed by self-reports from the participants
themselves. These procedures resulted in the 47 effect sizes that are the subject of the
following analyses.
The overall random effects mean was .26 (p<.001), indicating that subjects in the
treatment groups had significantly lower aggressive and disruptive behavior than
comparison subjects after participating in selected or indicated social information
processing programs. Figure 1 shows the forest plot for the effect size distribution, using
random effects methods. The effect sizes range from -.71 to 1.29. This figure shows that
the majority of effects (over 60%) are positive, though not large.
17
18
Analysis of Moderator Effects

There was also significant variability across the different studies in the effect sizes. A test
of the homogeneity of the effect sizes using the Q-statistic (Hedges & Olkin, 1985)
showed more variability across studies than expected from subject-level sampling error
(Q46=97, p<.001). This variation was expected to be associated with the nature of the
interventions, subjects, and methods in the studies of universal programs. Our next
step, therefore, was to identify the study characteristics most strongly associated with
effect size.
The Relationship of Method to Effect Size
The first step in identifying the study characteristics most strongly associated with effect
size was to examine the relationships between methodological quality and study effects.
We will later use the results of this analysis to control for methodological influences
when examining the intervention and subject characteristics that are of more
substantive interest. A variety of information describing the methodological
characteristics of the studies was used in this analysis. The relevant variables are:
Dependent variable characteristics
Informant: the most frequent informants were teachers (34 of 47 studies), and a
dummy code was created to signify teacher informants. A dummy code for selfreports (coded 1) was also created and included in the analysis, to be consistent
with the method variables used in the companion review of universal programs
(Wilson & Lipsey, forthcoming).
Timing of measurement: a dummy coded variable distinguishing between
measures taken immediately after treatment (coded 1) and those taken 2 or more
weeks after completion of treatment (coded 0; range 2 to 36 weeks).
Design characteristics and problems
Design, coded using three dummy codes, representing individual random
assignment, group-level random assignment and non-random assignment (coded
1 if the respective procedure was used; 0 if not).
Pretest adjustment: dummy coded variable indicating whether the posttest mean
difference effect size was adjusted for pretest differences (coded 1 if so).
Attrition: percentage loss from assignment to posttest.
Other
Number of effect sizes aggregated.
The correlation of each of these method variables with the aggressive and disruptive
behavior effect sizes was examined. The correlations are zero-order inverse variance
weighted, random effects correlations using maximum likelihood techniques and are
shown in Table 2.
19
Table 2: Zero-order Correlations between Study Method Characteristics and Aggressive

and Disruptive Behavior Effect Sizes (n=47)
Method Variable
Correlation
p
Teacher reported dependent variable (1) vs. other (0)
-.12
.40
Self-reported dependent variable (1) vs. other (0)
.11
.45
Timing of measurement, immediate (1) vs. later (0)
-.05
.70
Random assignment, individual (1) vs. other (0)
-.02
.89
Cluster random assignment (1) vs. other (0)
.01
.92
Non-random assignment (1) vs. other (0)
.01
.94
Pretest adjustment (1) vs. unadjusted (0)
-.06
.67
Attrition (% loss)
-.46
.00
Number of ES aggregated
.05
.71
Note: weighted random effects analysis
There was only one significant relationship between any of the method characteristics
examined and effect size. The relationship between attrition and study outcome was
large, significant, and negative indicating that studies with greater attrition produced
smaller effect sizes. Most striking in this method analysis was the finding that there
were no differences between studies that used individual random assignment and those
that assigned subjects to groups using a non-random method. Because of its significant
influence, attrition was carried forward as a method control in all later analyses. In
addition, the non-random assignment dummy code was carried forward to ensure that
any influence was made explicit; the teacher-report dummy code was also retained
because its relationship with effect size, though insignificant, was not trivial.6
The Relationship of Other Study Characteristics to Effect Size
With the influential method variables identified, we can turn to an analysis of the
important substantive study characteristics. This analysis follows the same procedure
described above for the method variables, but with adjustments for the three carriedover method variables. A series of inverse-variance weighted random effects multiple
regressions were conducted, with each including a single study characteristic and the
four method controls (Raudenbush, 1994). We elected to run each of these analyses
separately at first in order to identify the relationships between each study characteristic
and effect size, without the confounding influence of the other study characteristics.
Table 3 presents the results of these regression analyses.
Only one variable shown in Table 3 had a significant relationship with study outcome,
the type of school in which the program was conducted. However, there were several
other variables with non-trivial relationships with effect size. We will discuss each
grouping of variables shown in Table 3 in turn.
Among the general study characteristics, none had significant relationships with effect
size. However, the beta for year of publication was greater than .10. More recently
published studies generally produced larger effect sizes.
6
The self-report dummy code was not carried forward because there were only 4 studies with self-reported dependent
variables; this variable was only included in the initial method analysis to maintain consistency with the companion
review of universal social information processing programs.
20
In terms of student characteristics, only the risk status of the students showed a
relationship with effect size greater than .10. As shown in Table 1, there are three
categories of student risk: low risk, selected, and indicated. Students in the selected
category were selected for programs because of some risk for later antisocial behavior,
such as poor social skills, attention problems, and the like. Indicated students were
already exhibiting aggressive or disruptive behavior. Although the beta was not
significant, students in the indicated group tended to show greater reductions in
aggressive and disruptive behavior after treatment than did the lower risk students.
There were no significant relationships between gender mix, age, or socioeconomic
status and effect size.
Several characteristics of the treatment and its delivery circumstances had non-trivial
relationships with effect size in addition to the significant relationship between type of
school and study outcome. Programs delivered in special education schools or those in
which the subjects were pulled out of special education classrooms were not as effective
as those in which subjects were pulled out of regular classrooms for treatment. The
students in the special education settings tended to have multiple problems, including
both academic and behavioral difficulties. Although the higher risk children tended to
achieve greater benefits from treatment overall, the children in the special education
settings did not. These children may be a particularly difficult group to work with.
The programs in which graduate students delivered treatment tended to be less effective
than programs delivered by the researchers themselves or other non-research affiliated
delivery personnel (e.g., counselors, social workers, etc.), although the relationship was
not statistically significant.
In terms of the amount and quality of treatment, longer programs and better
implemented programs tended to be more effective than programs which were shorter
or had implementation problems. In addition, the few programs with one-on-one
sessions tended to be less effective than those that were delivered exclusively to groups
of students.
The final set of study characteristics we examined was a series of dummy codes
representing the most common modes of treatment used in social information
processing programs, anger control, social problem solving, perspective taking, and
general cognitive-behavioral and one dummy code representing the use of behavioral
modification in addition to the cognitively-oriented portion of the program. As is
evident from Table 3, the different treatment modes did not tend to be associated with
better or worse outcomes. All the different modes of treatment tended to produce
similar reductions in aggressive and disruptive behavior.
21
Table 3: Relationships between Study Characteristics and Aggressive Behavior Effect

Sizes with Method Variables Controlled (n=47)
Study Characteristic
(with method controls)
General Study Characteristics
Year of publication
.15
Published (1) vs. unpublished (0)
.10
USA (1) vs. all other countries (0)
-.07
Student Characteristics
Student risk (1=low; 2=selected; 3=indicated)
Gender mix (% male)
Age
Low SES (1) vs. mixed or middle (0)
.12
.09
-.09
.07
Evaluator/Researcher Role in Study

Role of evaluator in treatment delivery (1=low; 4=high)
Demonstration program (1) vs routine practice (0)
Program developer is PI (1) vs. developer not PI (0)
PI modified program (1) vs. unmodified (0)
-.06
.07
.03
.07
Site and Delivery Personnel

Special placement (1) vs. regular school (0)
Researcher provided treatment (1) vs. other provider (0)
Graduate students provided treatment (1) vs. other (0)
Non-research delivery personnel (1) vs. research (0)
-.24*
.04
-.12
.10
Amount and Quality of Treatment

Duration of treatment (weeks)
Number of sessions per week
Implementation quality (no problems=1, problems=0)
.19
-.01
.15
Format of Treatment
Tx has individual one-on-one component (yes=1; no=0)
-.15
Treatment Elements
General cognitive-behavioral component (1) vs. other (0)
Anger management component (1) vs. other (0)
Social problem solving component (1) vs. other (0)
Perspective taking component (1) vs. other (0)
Behavior modification component (1) vs. other (0)
.03
.04
.01
-.05
-.05

* p<.10
22
Moderators of Observed Effects on Aggressive and Disruptive Behavior

The final stage of our analysis of important moderators of effect size involved examining
the relative influence of some of the critical variables identified above. We performed an
inverse-variance weighted random effects multiple regression analysis in which the
three method variables were entered along with all variables from Table 3 with beta
coefficients greater than .10. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 4.
Only two variables were significant in the final model, attrition and the special
education school dummy variable. As in the earlier analyses, studies with greater
attrition tended to have significantly smaller effects and programs for special education
students were less effective. Publication year, publication status, student risk, and
implementation quality all had positive, though nonsignificant, relationships with effect
size, similar to the univariate model presented above. Programs with individual
components were somewhat less effective than those delivered exclusively to groups.
Table 4: Regression Model for Effect Size Moderators for Selected and Indicated Social
Information Processing Programs (n=47)
Study Characteristic
Method Characteristics
Teacher reported DV (1) vs. other (0)
-.01
Attrition (%)
-.57**
Random assignment (1) vs. other (0)
-.22
General Study Characteristics
Publication year
Published (1) vs. unpublished (0)
.26
.11
Student Characteristics
Student risk (indicated=1; all other lower risk=0)
.21
Special placement
Special placement program (1) vs. regular school (0)
-.30*
Format and Delivery Personnel

Graduate student providers (1) vs. other (0)
Non-research provider (1) vs. research (0)
Treatment has individual one-on-one component (1=yes; 0=no)
.05
.05
-.17
Amount and Quality of Treatment

Treatment duration (weeks, logged)
Implementation quality (no problems=1, problems=0)
** p<.05; * p<.10
.09
.14
23
Although the relationships in this analysis generally follow what we found in earlier
analyses, allowing the individual study characteristics to co-vary produced a few
changes. Though not significant, the random assignment dummy code is more
influential in the full model. Studies which used individual random assignment tended
to produce smaller effects than those which used a non-random design. But, the dummy
code for teacher reported outcome variables was less influential in this final model.
Conclusions
The objective of this systematic review was to examine the effects of school-based social
information processing interventions on the aggressive and disruptive behavior of
selected and indicated school-age children. We were able to locate 47 studies of social
information processing programs delivered to specially selected children in school
settings. Overall, we found a positive program effect. At-risk and behavior problem
students who participated in social information processing programs showed less
aggressive and disruptive behavior after treatment than students who did not receive a
program. The overall weighted mean effect size was .26, which was statistically
significant. Over 60% of the effect size values were positive.
There was significant heterogeneity in outcomes across the 47 studies we reviewed and
our analyses of moderators produced some interesting findings. Only one method
variable had an impact on study outcomesstudies with greater amounts of attrition
between pretest and posttest tended to show smaller program impact than those with
little attrition. There were no significant differences between experimental and quasiexperimental studies, although studies which used random assignment methods tended
to produce smaller effects than the non-random studies.
Social information processing programs for special education students were
significantly less effective than those for regular education students, though overall
greater reductions in aggressive behavior were found for higher risk students. Students
who have behavior problems likely have more potential for change than those who are at
risk but not yet exhibiting serious problems. However, children who have been placed in
special schools or classrooms and then selected for special violence prevention
programming on top of that may have such serious problems that short-term social
information processing programs are not likely to have a strong impact.
The different foci of social information processing programs did not appear to make a
difference. Programs emphasizing anger control were no more effective than those
emphasizing social problem solving or perspective taking.
Selected and indicated programs to prevent antisocial behavior are part of the violence
prevention strategies of many schools. School administrators and teachers have a wide
variety of choices of prevention programs and are interested in choosing programs that
are likely to be effective. The overall mean effect size of .26 indicates that selected and
indicated social information processing programs are effective for reducing aggressive
and disruptive behavior. We can translate this into terms that are more concrete by
converting it into typical levels of aggressive behavior in schools. According to the 1999
Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 14.2% of students reported being in a physical fight on
24
school grounds in the year prior to the survey. For 1995 and 1997, 15.5% and 14.8% of
students reported being in physical fights (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
2002). If we use these figures to estimate that about 15% of untreated school children
will get into a fight during a school year, the overall effect size of .26 for selected and
indicated social information processing programs translates into an eight percentage
point reduction in fighting. That is, if 15% of selected or indicated students who received
no social information processing training were getting into fights before intervention,
only 7% of children in social information processing programs were getting into fights.
The most effective programs produced larger effects than this and, thus, would reduce
rates of aggressive behavior even more. In addition, since many of the children in
selected or indicated programs were already exhibiting some problem behavior, it is
likely that their baseline level of fighting behavior was higher than the general estimate
of 15%. Thus, the reduction in aggressive behavior could possibly be greater.
Plans for Updating

The authors will take responsibility for updating this review to include new studies
reported subsequent to the initial review and earlier studies missed in the search that
are identified and located. These updates will be planned for approximately every three
years.
Conflict of Interest
None.
25
References
Alpert-Gillis, L. J., Pedro-Carroll, J. L., & Cowen, E. L. (1987). The Children of Divorce
Intervention Program: Development, implementation, and evaluation of a program for young
urban children. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 57, 583-589.
Asher, S. R., & Renshaw, P. D. (1981). Children without friends: Social knowledge and social
skills training. In S. R. Asher & J. M. Gottman (Eds.), The development of childrens
friendships (pp. 273-296). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Beelmann, A., Pfingsten, U., & Lsel, F. (1994). Effects of training social competence in children:
A meta-analysis of recent evaluation studies. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 260271.
Clayton, C. J., Ballif-Spanvill, B., & Hunsaker, M. D. (2001). Preventing violence and teaching
peace: A review of promising and effective antiviolence, conflict-resolution, and peace
programs for elementary school children. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 10, 1-35.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Coleman, M., Wheeler, L., & Webber, J. (1993). Research on interpersonal problem-solving
training: A review. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 25-37.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1989). Childrens perceptions of peer entry and conflict situations:
Social strategies, goals, and outcome expectations. In B. Schneider, J. Nadel, G. Attili, & R.
Weissberg (Eds.), Social competence in developmental perspective (pp. 396-399). New York:
Kluwer.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing
mechanisms in childrens social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101.
Denham, S. A., & Almeida, M. C. (1987). Childrens social problem-solving skills, behavioral
adjustment, and interventions: A meta-analysis evaluating theory and practice. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 8, 391-409.
DeVoe, J. F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Ruddy, S. A., Miller, A. K., Planty, M., Snyder, T. D., &
Rand, M. R. (2003). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2003 (NCES 2004-004/NCJ
201257). Washington, DC: US Departments of Education and Justice.
Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of social competence in children. In
M. Perlmutter (Ed.), The Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 77-125).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G., McClaskey, C., & Brown, M. (1986). Social competence in children.
Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 51 (Serial No. 213).
Durlak, J. A. (1997). Primary prevention programs in schools. Advances in Clinical Child
Psychology, 19, 283-318.
D'Zurilla, T. J., & Goldfried, M. R. (1971). Problem solving and behavior modification. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 78, 107-126.
Edwards, P., Clarke, M., DiGuiseppi, C., Pratap, S., Roberts, I., & Wentz, R. (2002).
Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: Accuracy and reliability
of screening records. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1635-1640.
Garofalo, J., Siegel, L., & Laub, J. (1987). School-related victimizations among adolescents: An
analysis of National Crime Survey (NCS) narratives. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 3, 321-338.
Goldstein, A. P., Harootunian, B., & Conoley, J. C. (1994). Student aggression: Prevention,
management, and replacement training. New York: The Guilford Press.
Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Czeh, E. R., Cantor, D., Crosse, S., & Hantman, I. (2000).
National study of delinquency prevention in schools. Final Report, Grant No. 96-MU-MU0008. Ellicott City, MD: Gottfredson Associates, Inc. Available online: www.gottfredson.com.
Howard, K. A., Flora, J., & Griffin, M. (1999). Violence-prevention programs in schools: State of
the science and implications for future research. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 8, 197-
26
215.
Hudley, C. (1991). An attribution retraining program to reduce peer directed aggression among
African-American male elementary school students (Doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Los Angeles). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52/4-A, 1263-1264.
(University Microfilms No. AAT91-28799)
Kanchur, S. P., et al. (1996). School associated violent deaths in the U. S., 1992 to 1994. Journal
of the American Medical Association, 275, 1729-1733.
Kendall, P. C. (1995). Cognitive-behavioral therapies with youth: Guiding theory, current status,
and emerging developments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 235-247.
Lewinsohn, P. M., Clarke, G. N., Hops, H., & Andrews, J. (1990). Cognitive-behavioral treatment
for depressed adolescents. Behavior Therapy, 21, 385-401.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lochman, J. E., Lampron, L. B., Burch, P. R., & Curry, J. F. (1985). Client characteristics
associated with behavior change for treated and untreated aggressive boys. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 527-538.
Lsel, F., & Beelmann, A. (2003). Effects of child skills training in preventing antisocial
behavior: A systematic review of randomized evaluations. Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 587, 84-109.
Mize, J., & Cox, R. A. (1990). Social knowledge and social competence: Number and quality of
strategies as predictors of peer behavior. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 151, 117-127.
Moote, G. T., Smyth, N. J., & Wodarski, J. S. (1999). Social skills training with youth in school
settings: A review. Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 427-465.
Mytton, J. A., DiGuiseppi, C., Gough, D. A., Taylor, R. S., & Logan, S. (2002). School-based
violence prevention programs: Systematic review of secondary prevention trials. Archives of
Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 156, 752-762.
Nangle, D. W., Erdley, C. A., Carpenter, E. M., & Newman, J. E. (2002). Social skills training as
a treatment for aggressive children and adolescents: A developmental-clinical integration.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 169-199.
Pellegrini, D. S. & Urbain, E. S. (1985). An evaluation of interpersonal cognitive problem solving
training with children. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 26, 1741.
Quinn, M. M., Kavale, K. A., Mathur, S. R., Rutherford, R. B., Jr., & Forness, S. R. A metaanalysis of social skill interventions for students with emotional or behavioral disorders.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 54-64.
Schneider, B. H., & Byrne, B. M. (1985). Childrens social skills training: A meta-analysis. In B.
H. Schneider, K. H. Rubin, & J. E. Ledingham (Eds.), Childrens peer relations: Issues in
assessment and intervention (pp. 175-192). New York: Springer.
Shure, M. B. (1992). I Can Problem Solve: An interpersonal cognitive problem-solving
program: Kindergarten and primary grades. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Shure, M. B., & Spivack, G. (1972). Means-ends thinking, adjustment, and social class among
elementary-school-aged children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 38, 348353.
Shure, M. B., & Spivack, G. (1979). Interpersonal cognitive problem solving and primary
prevention: Programming for preschool and kindergarten children. Journal of Clinical Child
Slaby, R. G., & Guerra, N. G. (1988). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders:
I. Assessment. Developmental Psychology, 24, 580-588.
Spivack, G., & Shure, M. B. (1974). Social adjustment in young children. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Wilson, S. J., Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (2003). The effects of school violence prevention
programs on aggressive and disruptive behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
27
Studies Included in the Systematic Review

NOTE: Numbers in brackets at the end of each reference are study identification numbers. Citations
with the same number are part of the same study.
Arbuthnot, J. (1992). Sociomoral reasoning in behavior-disordered adolescents: Cognitive and behavioral
change. In J. McCord & R. E. Tremblay (Eds.), Preventing antisocial behavior: Interventions from
birth through adolescence. (pp. 283-310). New York: The Guilford Press. [463]
Arbuthnot, J., & Gordon, D. A. (1986). Behavioral and cognitive effects of a moral reasoning development
intervention for high-risk behavior-disordered adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 54, 208-216. [463]
Barkstrom, S. R. (1998). School-based intervention and adolescent aggression: A comparison of
behavioral social skills and social problem-solving approaches to modifying student behavior
(Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 58/8-B, 4436. (University Microfilms No. AAT98-07274) [1956]
Binfet, J. T. (2001). The effect of reflective abstraction versus peer-focused discussions on the promotion
of moral development and prosocial behavior: An intervention study (Doctoral dissertation, The
University of British Columbia (Canada), 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(12-A),
4670. (University Microfilms No. AAT NQ56506 ) [5090]
Bloomquist, M. L., August, G. J., & Ostrander, R. (1991). Effects of a school-based cognitive-behavioral
intervention for ADHD children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 591-604. [321]
Booth, B. A. (1995). A cognitively based anger control training program with aggressive adolescents in
the school setting (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, Albany, 1995). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 56/07-A, 2870. (University Microfilms No. AAT95-40344) [498]
Broota, A., & Sehgal, R. (2004). Management of conduct disorders through cognitive behavioural
intervention. Psychological Studies, 49, 69-72. [5061]
Burcham, B. G. (2002). Impact of school-based social problem-solving training on middle school
students with disruptive behavior (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 63(2-A), 507. (University Microfilms No. 3042453) [5030]
Burgher, B. M., III (1997). An analysis of predictors of response to preventive treatment for conduct
disorder (Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International,
DAI-B 58(03), 1521-1851. (University Microfilms No. AAT 9724393) [3798]
Camp, B. W. (1980). Two psychoeducational treatment programs for young aggressive boys. In C. K.
Whalen & B. Henker (Eds.), Hyperactive children: The social ecology of identification and
treatment (pp. 191-219). New York: Academic Press. [1884]
Camp, B. W., Blom, G. F., Herbert, F., & Van Doornick, W. J. (1977). "Think Aloud": A program for
developing self-control in young aggressive boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 5, 157169. [476]
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1988). Multiple sources of data on social behavior and social status in the
school: A cross-age comparison. Child Development, 59, 815-829. [401; 460]
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age
perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570. [401; 460]
Coie, J. D., Lochman, J. E., Terry, R., & Hyman, C. (1992). Predicting early adolescent disorder from
childhood aggression and peer rejection. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 60, 783-792.
[401; 460]
Coie, J. D., Rabiner, D. L., & Lochman, J. E. (1989). Promoting peer relations in a school setting. In L. A.
Bond & B. E. Compas (Eds.), Primary prevention and promotion in the schools (pp. 207-234).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. [401; 460]
Coie, J. D., Underwood, M., & Lochman, J. E. (1991). Programmatic intervention with aggressive children
in the school setting. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of
childhood aggression (pp. 389-410). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [401; 460]
Collier, C. E. (2002). The effect of pro-social skills training on the problem behavior of selected African
American children in the District of Columbia public schools: Recommendations for change
(Doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International,
62(11-B), 5358. [5079]
Deffenbacher, J. L., Lynch, R. S., Oetting, E. R., & Kemper, C. C. (1996). Anger reduction in early
adolescents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 149-157. [935]
28
Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive
aggression in children's peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1146-1158.
[401; 460]
Edleson, J. L., & Rose, S. D. (1981). Investigations into the efficacy of short-term group social skills
training for socially isolated children. Child Behavior Therapy, 3, 1-16. [755; 756]
Flores de Apodaca, R. (1979). Interpersonal problem-solving training for maladjusted primary graders
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40/4-B, 1889.
(University Microfilms No. AAT79-22930) [2065]
Graham, S., & Hudley, C. (1992). An attributional approach to aggression in African-American children.
In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 75-94). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum. [473]
Hudley, C. (1991). An attribution retraining program to reduce peer directed aggression among
African-American male elementary school students (Doctoral dissertation, University of California,
Los Angeles). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52/4-A, 1263-1264. (University Microfilms No.
AAT91-28799) [473]
Hudley, C. A. (1992, April). The reduction of peer directed aggression among highly aggressive AfricanAmerican boys. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED346204) [473]
Hudley, C. A. (1994). The reduction of childhood aggression using the BrainPower program. In M. J.
Furlong & D. C. Smith (Eds.), Anger, hostility, and aggression: Assessment, prevention, and
intervention strategies for youth (pp. 313-344). Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing. [473]
Hudley, C., & Graham, S. (1993). An attributional intervention to reduce peer-directed aggression among
African-American boys. Child Development, 64, 124-138. [473]
Hughes, J., & Cavell, T. A. (1995). Cognitive-affective approaches: Enhancing competence in aggressive
children. In G. Cartledge, & J. F. Milburn (Eds.), Teaching social skills to children and youth (pp.
199-236). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. [456]
Hughes, J. N., Grossman, P. B., & Hart, M. T. (1993, August). Effectiveness of problem solving training
and teacher consultation with aggressive children. Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Toronto, ON. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 370056) [456]
Kahl, B. (1984). A school-based cognitive-behavior modification program for hyperaggressive children
(Doctoral dissertation, ). Dissertation Abstracts International, -A), 126. [1192]
Larkin, R. (1999). The effect of behavioral group counseling on improving self-esteem, perceived selfcontrol, and classroom behavior of elementary students (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Georgia, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59/10-A, 3969. (University Microfilms No.
AAT99-08615) [1922]
Larson, J. D. (1992). Anger and aggression management techniques through the Think First curriculum.
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 18, 101-117. [1180]
Larson, J. D. (1991). The effects of a cognitive-behavioral anger-control intervention on the behavior of
at-risk middle school students (Doctoral dissertation, Marquette University). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 52/1-A, 117. (University Microfilms No. AAT91-07785) [1180]
Larson, K. A. (1989). Task-related and interpersonal problem-solving training for increasing school
success in high-risk young adolescents. RASE: Remedial & Special Education, 10, 32-42. [387]
Lochman, J. E. (1984). Cognitive-behavioral intervention with aggressive boys: Three year follow-up and
preventive effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 426-432. [458]
Lochman, J. E. (1985). Effects of different treatment lengths in cognitive behavioral interventions with
aggressive boys. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 16, 45-56. [458]
Lochman, J. E., Burch, P. R., Curry, J. F., & Lampron, L. B. (1984). Treatment and generalization effects
of cognitive-behavioral and goal-setting interventions with aggressive boys. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 52, 915-916. [458]
Lochman, J. E., Coie, J. D., Underwood, M. K., & Terry, R. (1993). Effectiveness of a social relations
intervention program for aggressive and nonaggressive, rejected children. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 61, 1053-1058. [401; 460]
Lochman, J. E., Lampron, L. B. (1988). Cognitive-behavioral interventions for aggressive boys: 7-month
follow-up effects. Journal of Child & Adolescent Psychotherapy, 5, 15-23. [458]
Lochman, J. E., Lampron, L. B., Burch, P. R., & Curry, J. F. (1985). Client characteristics associated with
behavior change for treated and untreated aggressive boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
13, 527-538. [458]
29
Lochman, J. E., Lampron, L. B., Gemmer, T. C., & Harris, S. R. (1987). Anger coping intervention with
aggressive children: A guide to implementation in school settings. In P. A. Keller, & S. R. Heyman
(Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (Vol. 6) (pp. 339-356). Sarasota, FL:
Professional Resource Exchange. [458]
Lochman, J. E., Lampron, L. B., Gemmer, T. C., Harris, S. R., & Wyckoff, G. M. (1987). Teacher
consultation and cognitive behavioral interventions with aggressive boys. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Psychological Association Annual Convention. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. 291044) [459]
Lochman, J. E., Lampron, L. B., Gemmer, T. C., Harris, S. R., & Wyckoff, G. M. (1989). Teacher
consultation and cognitive-behavioral interventions with aggressive boys. Psychology in the
Schools, 26, 179-188. [459]
Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2004). The Coping Power Program for preadolescent aggressive boys and
their parents: Outcome effects at the 1-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 72, 571-578. [5039]
Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2003). Effectiveness of the Coping Power Program and of classroom
intervention with aggressive children: Outcomes at a 1-year follow-up. Behavior Therapy, 34, 493515. [5023]
Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2002). Contextual social-cognitive mediators and child outcomes: A test of
the theoretical model in the Coping Power program. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 945967. [5039]
Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2002). The Coping Power program at the middle-school transition:
Universal and indicated prevention effects. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16 (Suppl. 4), S40S54. [5023]
Mannarino, A. P., Christy, M., Durlak, J. A., & Magnussen, M. G. (1982). Evaluation of social competence
training in the schools. Journal of School Psychology, 20, 11-19. [224]
Milne, J., & Spence, S. H. (1987). Training social perception skills with primary school children: A
cautionary note. Behavioural Psychotherapy, 15, 144-157. [2121]
Nelson, J. R., Dykeman, C., Powell, S., & Petty, D. (1996). The effects of a group counseling intervention
on students with behavioral adjustment problems. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 31,
21-33. [384]
Nickerson, K. F. (2004). Anger in adolescents: The effectiveness of a brief cognitive-behavioral anger
management training program for reducing attitudinal and behavioral expressions of anger
(Doctoral dissertation, ). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(1-B), 425. [5092]
Omizo, M. M., Hershberger, J. M., & Omizo, S. A. (1988). Teaching children to cope with anger.
Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 22, 241-245. [379]
Pascucci, N. J. (1991). The efficacy of anger control training in reducing chronic aggressive behavior
among emotionally disturbed/learning-disabled African-American male preadolescents and
adolescents (Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 51(11), 3678. (University Microfilms No. AAT 9109870) [5066]
Pepler, D., King, G., Craig, W., Byrd, B., & Bream, L. (1995). The development and evaluation of a
multisystem social skills group training program for aggressive children. Child and Youth Care
Forum, 24, 297-313. [241]
Pitkanen, L. (1974). The effect of simulation exercises on the control of aggressive behaviour in children.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 15, 169-177. [5043]
Rahill, S. A. (2002). A comparison of the effectiveness of story-based and skill-based social competence
programs on the development of social problem solving and peer relationship skills of children
with emotional disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(6-A), 2135. (University Microfilms No. 3055612) [5000]
Rahill, S. A., & Teglasi, H. (2003). Processes and outcomes of story-based and skill-based social
competency programs for children with emotional disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 41,
413-429. [5000]
Rosengren, D. B. (1987). The Program for Anger Control Training (PACT): An intervention for angry
adolescents (Doctoral dissertation, University of Montana, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 48(06), 1819. (University Microfilms No. AAT87-19354) [1217]
Scheckner, S. B. (2004). The evaluation of an anger management program for pre-adolescents in an
elementary school setting (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 2003). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 64(7-B), 3541. [5098]
30
Scheckner, S. B., & Rollin, S. A. (2003). An elementary school violence prevention program. Journal of
School Violence, 2(4), 3-42. [5098]
Sharp, S. R. (2004). Effectiveness of an anger management training program based on rational emotive
behavior theory (REBT) for middle school students with behavior problems (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Tennessee, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(10-A), 3595. [5083]
Shechtman, Z. (2000). An innovative intervention for treatment of child and adolescent aggression: An
outcome study. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 157-167. [5053]
Stainback, G. J. (1986). Effects of cognitive self-instruction in the increase of anger control for verbally
aggressive children (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, 1986). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 47/5-B, 2187-2188. (University Microfilms No. AAT86-13117) [2052]
Sukhodolsky, D. G., Solomon, R. M., & Perine, J. (2000). Cognitive-behavioral, anger-control intervention
for elementary school children: A treatment outcome study. Journal of Child and Adolescent Group
Therapy, 10, 159-170. [1998]
Teglasi, H., & Rothman, L. (2001). STORIES: A classroom-based program to reduce aggressive behavior.
Journal of School Psychology, 39, 71-94. [5064]
Vickery, S. A. (1982). Stress inoculation for anger control in children (Doctoral dissertation, University of
South Carolina, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42(12), 4945. (University Microfilms
No. AAT 8212268 ) [5026]
Voelm, C. E. (1984). The efficacy of teaching rational emotive education to acting-out and socially
withdrawn adolescents (Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology,
Fresno, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44(12), 3947. (University Microfilms No. AAT
8402501 ) [5049]
Zashin, M. (1981). Prosocial behavior training programs: Modeling, role-playing, and training in verbal selfinstruction as techniques for teaching prosocial behaviors to groups of behaviorally disturbed preadolescent children (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 42/3-B, 1199. (University Microfilms No. AAT81-19403) [3352]
Appendix
Tables of Coded Variables by Study
31
32
Table A1: Method Variables by Study

Author(s) & Year
Random Informant/Source
Assignment
of DV
Arbuthnot & Gordon, 1986

Barkstrom, 1998
Binfet, 2001
Bloomquist, et al., 1991
Booth, 1995
Broota & Sehgal, 2004
Burcham, 2002
Burgher, 1997
Camp, 1980
Camp, et al., 1977
Collier, 2002
Deffenbacher, et al., 1996
Edelson & Rose, 1981 (Study 1)
Flores de Apodaca, 1979
Hudley, 1991
Hughes, Grossman, & Hart, 1993
Kahl, 1984 (Boys)
Kahl, 1984 (Girls)
Larkin, 1999
Larson, K., 1989
Larson, J., 1991
Lochman & Wells, 2002
Lochman, et al., 1985
Lochman, et al., 1993 (Aggressive sample)
Lochman, et al., 1993 (Rejected sample)
Mannarino, et al., 1982
Milne & Spence, 1987
Nelson, et al., 1996
Nickerson, 2004
Omizo, Hershberger, & Omizo, 1988
Pepler, et al., 1995
Pitkanen, 1974
Rahill, 2002
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
archive
teacher report
teacher report
teacher report
teacher report
self-report
archive
parent report
teacher report
teacher report
teacher report
self-report
teacher report
teacher report
teacher report
teacher report
teacher report
teacher report
teacher report
teacher report
archive
teacher report
teacher report
self-report
observation
teacher report
teacher report
teacher report
teacher report
teacher report
teacher report
teacher report
teacher report
teacher report
observation
teacher report
Pretest
% Attrition
Adjustment
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
None
3-10%
None
> 10%
None
None
> 10%
> 10%
> 10%
None
> 10%
3-10%
None
None
> 10%
3-10%
> 10%
None
None
None
3-10%
None
> 10%
> 10%
None
None
> 10%
> 10%
None
3-10%
None
3-10%
None
3-10%
None
> 10%
# items
in DV
ES
Estimated
1 item
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
1 item
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
1 item
1 item
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
2-5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
2-5 items
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
# ES
Aggregated
2
3
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
6
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
continued
33
Table A1 (continued): Method Variables by Study

Author(s) & Year
Rascucci, 1991
Rosengren, 1987
Schechtman, 2000
Scheckner & Rollin, 2003
Sharp, 2004
Stainback, 1986
Sukhodolsky, et al., 2000
Teglasi & Rothman
Vickery, 1982
Voelm, 1984
Zashin, 1981
Random Informant/Source
Assignment
of DV
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
archive
self-report
teacher report
teacher report
archive
teacher report
teacher report
teacher report
observation
teacher report
teacher report
Pretest
% Attrition
Adjustment
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
None
> 10%
3-10%
3-10%
> 10%
None
None
3-10%
None
> 10%
3-10%
# items
in DV
ES
Estimated
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
2-5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
> 5 items
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
# ES
Aggregated
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
34
Table A2: General Characteristics and Subject Variables by Study

Author(s) & Year
Barkstrom, 1998
Binfet, 2001
Booth, 1995
Burcham, 2002
Burgher, 1997
Camp, 1980
Camp, et al., 1977
Collier, 2002
Hudley, 1991
Kahl, 1984 (Boys)
Kahl, 1984 (Girls)
Larkin, 1999
Larson, J., 1991
Larson, K., 1989
Nickerson, 2004
Pitkanen, 1974
Rahill, 2002
Rascucci, 1991
Rosengren, 1987
Schechtman, 2000
Sharp, 2004
Country
USA
USA
Canada
USA
USA
India
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
Australia
USA
USA
USA
Canada
Finland
USA
USA
USA
Israel
USA
USA
Published?
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Subject Risk
indicated
indicated
general
at-risk
indicated
indicated
indicated
indicated
indicated
indicated
indicated
at-risk
at-risk
at-risk
at-risk
indicated
indicated
indicated
indicated
at-risk
indicated
at-risk
indicated
indicated
indicated
indicated
indicated
at-risk
at-risk
at-risk
at-risk
general
indicated
indicated
indicated
indicated
indicated
indicated
indicated
indicated
indicated
% male
60-90% male
60-90%
50-50
60-90% male
60-90% male
all male
50-50
all male
all male
all male
all male
50-50
50-50
50-50
60-90% male
all male
60-90% male
all male
all female
60-90% male
50-50
60-90% male
60-90% male
all male
all male
all male
50-50
50-50
60-90% male
50-50
all male
50-50
50-50
60-90% male
all male
60-90% male
all male
60-90% male
60-90% male
50-50
60-90% male
Age
14.5
13
11.6
8.41
13.5
16
12.5
7
6.8
12
10.5
12
10.4
10.23
7.3
10.5
8.5
6
6
7.68
13.9
12.1
10
9.5
11
11
9
9
7.65
10
9.9
14.5
10.5
9.2
8.3
9.37
12.5
15.3
12.5
10
12
Low SES?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
continued
35
Table A2 (continued): General Characteristics and Subject Variables by Study

Author(s) & Year
Stainback, 1986
Teglasi & Rothman
Vickery, 1982
Voelm, 1984
Zashin, 1981
Country
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
Published?
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Subject Risk
at-risk
at-risk
at-risk
indicated
indicated
at-risk
% male
60-90% male
all male
60-90% male
60-90% male
60-90% male
60-90% male
Age
13.5
10
9.5
9
14
9.19
Low SES?
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
36
Table A3: Treatment Characteristics by Study

Author(s) & Year
Barkstrom, 1998
Binfet, 2001
Booth, 1995
Burcham, 2002
Burgher, 1997
Camp, 1980
Camp, et al., 1977
Collier, 2002
Hudley, 1991
Kahl, 1984 (Boys)
Kahl, 1984 (Girls)
Larkin, 1999
Larson, J., 1991
Larson, K., 1989
Nickerson, 2004
Pitkanen, 1974
Rahill, 2002
Type of school/class
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Special
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Special
Delivery personnel
Researcher
Researcher
Researcher
Mixed (research affiliated)
Researcher
Researcher
Svc. Professional
Svc. Professional
Researcher
Grad student
Grad student
Svc. Professional
Researcher
Grad student
Svc. Professional
Svc. Professional
Researcher
Researcher
Grad student
Svc. Professional
Svc. Professional
Grad student
Grad student
Grad student
Researcher
Svc. Professional
Svc. Professional
Researcher
Svc. Professional
Grad student
Individual
Component
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Duration
(weeks)
18
9
10
10
12
8
30
16
8
6
8
9
6
8
14
6
10
23
23
8
5
50
68
60
12
18
17
17
14
5
8
4
10
15
4
25
Implementation
Problems?
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
continued
37
Table A3 (continued): Treatment Characteristics by Study

Author(s) & Year
Rascucci, 1991
Rosengren, 1987
Schechtman, 2000
Sharp, 2004
Stainback, 1986
Teglasi & Rothman
Vickery, 1982
Voelm, 1984
Zashin, 1981
Type of school/class
Special
Regular
Special
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Special
Delivery personnel
Researcher
Grad student
Svc. Professional
Researcher
Researcher
Researcher
Researcher
Researcher
Grad student
Individual
Component
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Duration
(weeks)
5
5
10
8
6
4
10
15
3
10
5
Implementation
Problems?
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No

1014 - R Interventie Pe Agresivitate PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1014 - R Interventie Pe Agresivitate PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Campbell Systematic Reviews

The Effects of School-Based

The effects of school-based social information processing interventions on

Campbell Systematic Reviews

Mark W. Lipsey, Vanderbilt University, USA

David B. Wilson, George Mason University, USA

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

The Effects of School-based Social Information Processing

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Objective of the Review ............................................................... 8

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Background for the Review

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

What Social Information Processing Programs are Not

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Objective of the Review

Methods of the Review

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

or clarifying a goal, (4) generating or accessing possible responses, (5) choosing a

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

early intervention, prevention, psychotherapeutic outcomes, therapy, training,

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Data Management and Extraction

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Table 1: Characteristics of Studies (n=47)

Risk for Antisocial behavior

Routine Practice Program

Sample Size (tx + control)

Role of Program Developer in Study

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Table 1 (continued): Characteristics of Studies (n=47)

Number of Sessions per Week

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Analysis of Moderator Effects

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Table 2: Zero-order Correlations between Study Method Characteristics and Aggressive

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Table 3: Relationships between Study Characteristics and Aggressive Behavior Effect

Evaluator/Researcher Role in Study

Site and Delivery Personnel

Amount and Quality of Treatment

Note: weighted random effects analysis

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Moderators of Observed Effects on Aggressive and Disruptive Behavior

Format and Delivery Personnel

Amount and Quality of Treatment

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Plans for Updating

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs

Studies Included in the Systematic Review

Selected/Indicated Social Information Processing Programs