Evaluation of a Community-Based Program for Young Boys At-Risk of Antisocial Behavior: Results and Issues

• NCJ Number: 306910
• Journal: Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Volume: 17 Issue: 1 Dated: Feb 2008 Pages: 12–19
• Author(s): Ellen L. Lipman; Meghan Kenny; Carrie Sniderman; Susanne O'Grady; Leena K. Augimeri; Sarah Khayutin; Michael H. Boyle
• Date Published: February 2008
• Length: 8 pages

Annotation

This paper reports on a research study that analyzed the impact of a community-based intervention program for boys at risk of antisocial behavior, and compared the behavior changes of intervention groups to those of a wait-list comparison group; the authors describe their research methodology, outcomes, and provide an analysis of results.

Abstract

The authors assess the impact of a community-based intervention program for boys six- to 11-years old at-risk of antisocial behavior, and compare changes in behavior and competence pre-post for intervention and wait-list comparison group. Research methodology involved interested parents calling for enrolment of their sons; inclusion required police contact and/or clinical scores on Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL) or Teacher Report Form (TRF), no developmental delay, and they must be English-speaking. The program included two core 12-week groups (children’s, parents’) and optional additional services. Twelve sessions from February 2002 through December 2005 provide pre-post intervention data, boys waiting at least six months formed a comparison group which started April 2005. Outcomes included CBCL and TRF behavior scales (rule-breaking, aggression, conduct, total problems) and competence. The authors performed repeated measures analysis of variance. Pre- and post-outcome comparisons indicated improvements among all boys, with significant differences favoring intervention boys on CBCL behavior scales, but not TRF outcomes. Effect sizes were small to medium. Persisting high post-behavior levels, unmeasured variation in additional services, and other design and sampling issues are noted. The authors conclude that more rigorously designed program evaluation is required. Publisher Abstract Provided