Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS)

Program Developer/Owner

Mark Greenberg and Carol KuschéCo-developersPrevention Research CenterPenn State UniversityPenn State UniversityUniversity ParkUniversity Park16802-6504(814) 863-0112mxg47@psu.educkusche@comcast.net

Program Outcomes

• Academic Performance
• Antisocial-aggressive Behavior
• Conduct Problems
• Delinquency and Criminal Behavior
• Emotional Regulation
• Externalizing

Program Specifics

Program Type

• Cognitive-Behavioral Training
• School - Individual Strategies
• Skills Training
• Social Emotional Learning

Program Setting

• School

Continuum of Intervention

• Universal Prevention

Program Goals

A classroom-based social emotional learning program for elementary school students to reduce aggression and behavior problems.

Population Demographics

PATHS is implemented with elementary school age youth (grades K-6). A modified version to be age-appropriate for preschool students (called Head Start REDI) is treated separately by Blueprints. PATHS has been shown to be effective for both males and female

Target Population

Age

• Late Childhood (5-11) - K/Elementary

Gender

• Both

Gender Specific Findings

• Male

Race/Ethnicity

• All

Race/Ethnicity/Gender Details

Although samples have included the entire range of SES strata, as well as children from a wide diversity of ethnic, cultural, and family-structural backgrounds, there has been only one analysis that considered differences in program effects by race (CPPRG 1999). In examining the two sites with sufficiently diverse samples for comparison (Nashville and Seattle), it found similar program effects among African Americans and European Americans.

For gender, one analysis found that PATHS boys had improved scores as contrasted with comparison boys on the overall teacher ratings of behavior and the dimensions of frustration tolerance and peer sociability. Another study found no gender differences on prosocial behaviors and emotional regulation as rated by teachers, although peers rated control boys as more aggressive and hyperactive than intervention boys (CPPRG, 2010).

Other Risk and Protective Factors

Risk: poor self-control, lack of commitment to school, favorable attitudes toward problem behavior and early initiation, impulsiveness, and peer rejection.

Protective: prosocial orientation, positive peer relations, bonding to school.

Risk/Protective Factor Domain

• Individual
• School
• Peer

Risk/Protective Factors

Risk Factors

Individual: Antisocial/aggressive behavior, Early initiation of antisocial behavior, Favorable attitudes towards antisocial behavior, Hyperactivity*

School: Low school commitment and attachment, Repeated a grade

Protective Factors

Individual: Clear standards for behavior, Problem solving skills*, Prosocial behavior, Skills for social interaction*

Peer: Interaction with prosocial peers

School: Opportunities for prosocial involvement in education, Rewards for prosocial involvement in school

*Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program

See also: Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) Logic Model (PDF)

Brief Description of the Program

The PATHS curriculum is a comprehensive program for promoting emotional and social competencies and reducing aggression and behavior problems in elementary school-aged children (grades K-6) while simultaneously enhancing the educational process in the classroom. The evaluation of the preschool version, called Head Start REDI, is treated separately by Blueprints.

The Grade Level PATHS Curriculum consists of separate volumes of lessons for each grade level (K - 6), all of which include developmentally appropriate pictures, photographs, posters, and additional materials. Five conceptual domains, integrated in a hierarchical manner, are included in PATHS lessons at each grade level: self-control, emotional understanding, positive self-esteem, relationships, and interpersonal problem-solving skills. Throughout the lessons, a critical focus of PATHS involves facilitating the dynamic relationship between cognitive-affective understanding and real-life situations. PATHS is designed to be taught two to three times per week (or more often if desired, but not less than twice weekly), with daily activities to promote generalization and support ongoing behavior. PATHS lessons follow lesson objectives and provide scripts to facilitate instruction, but teachers have flexibility in adapting these for their particular classroom needs. Although each unit of PATHS focuses on one or more skill domains (e.g., emotional recognition, friendship, self-control, problem solving), aspects of all five major areas are integrated into each unit. Moreover, each unit builds hierarchically upon and synthesizes the learning which preceded it.

The PATHS curriculum is designed to be used by educators and counselors in a multi-year, universal prevention model. To encourage parent involvement and support, parent letters, home activity assignments, and information are also provided.

Description of the Program

The PATHS curriculum is a comprehensive program for promoting emotional and social competencies and reducing aggression and behavior problems in elementary school-aged children (grades K-6) while simultaneously enhancing the educational process in the classroom.

PATHS is now available by grade level in the following grades: Kindergarten, Grade 1, Grade 2, Grade 3, Grade 4, and Grade 5/6. The original multi-year version is also available from the publisher. The grade level versions maintain all key elements of the original version and now organize them more discretely by grade levels. The preschool version of the program, called Head Start REDI, is treated separately by Blueprints.

PATHS targets five major conceptual domains: (1) self control; (2) emotional understanding; (3) positive self-esteem; (4) relationships; and (5) interpersonal problem solving skills. In addition, a 30-lesson non-mandatory supplementary unit reviews and extends PATHS concepts that are covered in other units.

The PATHS curriculum is designed for use by regular classroom teachers. Lessons are sequenced according to increasing developmental difficulty and designed for implementation in approximately 20-30 minutes 2 to 3 times per week. The curriculum provides detailed lesson plans, exact scripts, suggested guidelines, and general and specific objectives for each lesson. However, the curriculum has considerable flexibility so that it can also be integrated with an individual teacher's style. Lessons include such activities as dialoguing, role-playing, story-telling by teachers and peers, social and self-reinforcement, attribution training, and verbal mediation. Learning is promoted in a multi-method manner through the combined use of visual, verbal, and kinesthetic modalities.

Theoretical Rationale

PATHS incorporates seven factors considered critical for effective, school-based SEL curricula. These included the use of:

• an integration of a variety of successful approaches and promising theories
• a developmental model, including neuropsychological brain development
• a multi-grade level paradigm
• a strong focus on the role of emotions and emotional development
• generalization of skills to everyday situations
• ongoing training and support for implementation
• multiple measures of both process and outcome for assessing program effectiveness

PATHS is based on five conceptual models. The first, the ABCD (Affective-Behavioral-Cognitive-Dynamic) Model of Development focuses on the promotion of optimal developmental growth for each individual. The ABCD model places primary importance on the developmental integration of affect (i.e., emotion, feeling, mood) and emotion language, behavior, and cognitive understanding to promote social and emotional competence. The second model incorporates an eco-behavioral systems orientation and emphasizes the manner in which the teacher uses the curriculum model and generalizes the skills to build a healthy classroom atmosphere (i.e., one that supports the children's use and internalization of the material they have been taught). The third model involves the domains of neurobiology and brain structuralization/organization. PATHS incorporates strategies to optimize the nature and quality of teacher-child and peer-peer interactions that are likely to impact brain development as well as learning. The fourth paradigm involves psychodynamic education (derived from Developmental Psychodynamic Theory) which aims to coordinate social, emotional, and cognitive growth. Finally, the fifth model includes psychological issues related to emotional awareness, or as it is more popularly labeled, emotional intelligence. As such, a central focus of PATHS is encouraging children to discuss feelings, experiences, opinions, and needs that are personally meaningful, and making them feel listened to, supported, and respected by both teachers and peers. As a result, the internalization of feeling valued, cared for, appreciated, and part of a social group is facilitated, which, in turn, motivates children to value, care for, and appreciate themselves, their environment, their social groups, other people, and their world.

Theoretical Orientation

• Skill Oriented
• Cognitive Behavioral
• Biological - Neurobiological
• Self Efficacy
• Social Learning

Brief Evaluation Methodology

Primary Evidence Base for Certification

Study 7

Averdijk et al. (2016) and Malti et al. (2011, 2012) used a randomized controlled trial with 56 public primary schools in Zurich assigned to four treatment conditions: PATHS (n = 442), Triple-P (n = 422), PATHS+Triple-P (n = 397), and control (n = 414). Students were followed for eight years, from ages 7-8 to 15. Assessments measured externalizing behavior, social competence, delinquency, and aggression.

Additional Studies

Study 1

Greenberg et al. (1995) used a randomized control trial with two schools assigned to the intervention group (n = 130 students) and two schools to the control group (n = 156 students). A posttest after one year of the program measured children's self-reported emotional understanding and teacher-reported emotional problems.

Study 2

Riggs et al. (2006) used a randomized controlled trial with two schools assigned to the intervention group (n = 153) and two schools to the control group (n = 165). Assessments at posttest (nine months after baseline) and one year after posttest measured executive function and teacher-reported behavior problems.

Study 3

Kam et al. (2004) used a randomized controlled trial with 18 teachers of special education classes and 133 special need children assigned to intervention or control groups. Assessments in the spring over the next three years measured depression, problem behavior, and social competence.

Study 4

Greenberg & Kusche (1998) combined a randomized controlled trial and a quasi-experimental design. The study randomly assigned six Seattle-area schools with 79 severely and profoundly hearing-impaired children to an intervention group or a waitlisted control group. The one-year posttest compared the two conditions on measures of academic achievement and behavioral difficulties, but the long-term analysis occurred after some control schools had joined the program.

Study 5

Kam et al. (2003) used a quasi-experimental matched-group design with three high-risk schools assigned to the intervention group (n = 164 students) and three lower-risk schools assigned to the control group (n = 186 students). The intervention combined PATHS with Big Brothers/Big Sisters. The study followed first-grade students from fall to spring, with teachers rating the students on social competence, aggression, and attentional control.

Study 6

Curtis & Norgate (2007) used a quasi-experimental design with five intervention schools (n = 114 students) matched to three control schools (n = 173 students) in the United Kingdom. The sample students, ages 5-7, were assessed at the end of one academic year on emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems, and consideration.

Study 8

Seifert et al. (2004) used a quasi-experimental design with one elementary school in Rhode Island and two cohorts of children - one younger cohort receiving the one-year intervention in 2001 during first grade (n = 62), and one older cohort not receiving the intervention (n = 75). Both cohorts were assessed in second grade, but in different years, on depression, socio-emotional competence, and peer relationships.

Study 9

The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (2010) used a cluster randomized controlled trial that assigned six schools to the intervention group and six schools to the control group. The sample of 2,937 students came from three cohorts and three different cities. A posttest assessment at the end of the three-year program included measures of social competence and peer relationships.

Study 10

Crean & Johnson (2013) and the SCDRCC (2010) used a randomized controlled trial with 14 schools assigned to intervention or control groups. The study followed third grade students (n = 779) for three years and included teacher-rated and child-reported measures of aggression, conduct problems, and delinquent behavior.

Study 11

Little et al. (2012) and Berry et al. (2016) used a randomized controlled trial with 64 schools in Birmingham, England, that were assigned to intervention or control groups. The 5,397 children in the schools were followed for two years. Teachers provided measures of strengths and difficulties.

Study 12

Schonfeld et al. (2014) used a randomized controlled trial with 24 schools assigned to an intervention group (n = 692 students) or control group (n = 702 students). The students were followed from third grade (baseline) to sixth grade (posttest) and assessed with statewide achievement tests.

Study 13

Fishbein et al. (2016) used a randomized controlled trial with four schools assigned to an intervention or control group. A total of 327 students in kindergarten were rated by teachers and nominated by peers in the fall and spring of the academic year. The measures included aggression, internalizing, emotional regulation, prosocial behavior, and academic skill.

Study 14

Goossens et al. (2012) used a quasi-experimental design that non-randomly assigned 18 Dutch schools and 1,331 students in kindergarten and grade 1 to intervention and comparison groups (n = 9 schools each) and followed the students over two-years. Teacher-rated and child-reported measures included problem behaviors, depression, and emotional regulation.

Study 15

David (2014) non-randomly assigned three Canadian schools and 98 students to an intervention and comparison group and followed the students over 14 months. The measures include reading achievement and social competence.

Study 16

The Manchester study (Barlow et al., 2015; Hennessey & Humphrey, 2019; Humphrey et al., 2016; Humphrey, Barlow, & Lendrum, 2018; Humphrey, Hennessey et al., 2018) was a cluster randomized controlled trial with a sample of 45 schools and 5,218 students in years 3-5 and 3,336 students in years 5-6. Measures of socio-emotional competence, mental health, and academic performance came at posttest (after two years of the program) and at 12- and 24-month follow-ups. An additional QED analysis (Panayiotou et al., 2020) examined program effects for students receiving most of the program lessons relative to those who did not.

Study 17

Novak et al. (2017) used a cluster randomized controlled trial that assigned 60 Croatian schools and 600 first-grade students to intervention and control conditions. The assessment at the end of second grade included teacher-reported measures of prosocial behavior, emotional regulation, hyperactivity, and aggression

Study 18

Hindley & Reed (1999) used a quasi-experimental design that non-randomly assigned four schools and three hearing-impaired units in northeast England to intervention and waitlisted control groups. The sample included 64 deaf children and assessments over the following year measured social and emotional adjustment, reading attainment, and self-control.

Study 19

Ross, Sheard et al. (2011) and Ross, Cheung et al. (2011) used a cluster randomized controlled trial with 12 schools in Northern Ireland, six in the intervention group (n = 650 students), and six in the comparison group (n = 780 students). Assessments of socio-emotional attitudes and prosocial behavior came yearly throughout the three years of the study, with the last assessment serving as a posttest.

Outcomes (Brief, over all studies)

Primary Evidence Base for Certification

Study 7

Malti et al. (2011, 2012) and Averdijk et al. (2016) found that, relative to students in the control schools, students in the intervention schools had significantly lower aggressive behavior (based on parent and teacher reports), ADHD symptoms (based on teacher reports), and adolescent delinquency (based on police contacts).

Additional Studies - The following findings should be interpreted within the context of study limitations

Study 1

Greenberg et al. (1995) found that, relative to the control group, the intervention group showed significantly greater improvements in affective vocabulary, understanding of feelings in others, and comprehension of complex feeling states.

Study 2

Riggs et al. (2006) found that, relative to students in the control group, students in the intervention group showed significantly greater improvements in teacher-reported externalizing and internalizing behavior.

Study 3

Kam, Greenberg, and Kusche (2004) found that, for a sample of special-needs students, the intervention group relative to the control group had significantly lower scores on internalizing symptomology, internalizing, externalizing behavior, depression, and self-control.

Study 4

Greenberg and Kusche (1998) found that, for a sample of deaf children, the intervention group relative to the control group showed significantly greater improvements in social problem-solving skills, emotional recognition skills, reading achievement and non-verbal planning skills, and teacher and parent-rated social competence.

Study 5

Kam et al. (2003) found that, in a study of PATHS combined with Big Brothers/Big Sisters, the intervention group relative to the control group showed significantly greater reductions in aggression and behavioral dysregulation, and significantly greater increases in emotional competence, but only in schools with high fidelity and high principal support.

Study 6

Curtis & Norgate (2007) found that the intervention group relative to the control group showed significantly greater improvements on emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems, and consideration.

Study 8

Seifert et al. (2004) found that, relative to the control cohort, the intervention cohort showed significantly greater improvements on global social competence and social-emotional competence.

Study 9

CPPRG (2010) found that the intervention group relative to the control group showed significantly greater reductions in teacher-rated scores on authority acceptance, cognitive concentration, and social competence, and for boys only, significantly reduced peer ratings of aggression and hyperactivity.

Study 10

Crean & Johnson (2013) found that, relative to the control group, the intervention group showed significantly greater reductions in teacher-reported conduct problems and in student-reported aggressive social problem solving, hostile attribution bias, and aggressive interpersonal negotiation strategies.

Study 11

Little et al. (2012) and Berry et al. (2016) found no significant effects on youth strengths and difficulties or on teacher and classroom behaviors.

Study 12

Schonfeld et al. (2014) found that, relative to the control group, the intervention group showed significantly higher test score proficiency in reading, writing, and math.

Study 13

Fishbein et al. (2016) found that, relative to the control group, the intervention group showed significantly greater improvements in researcher-rated outcomes of inhibition task accuracy and impulsivity and teacher-rated outcomes of aggression, internalizing, social competence, emotion regulation, prosocial behavior, impulsivity, inattention, closeness and conflict with teacher, peer relationship problems, and academic skills.

Study 14

Goossens et al. (2012) found only one significant effect (higher emotional awareness in the intervention group than the comparison group) in 27 tests.

Study 15

David (2014) found no significant program effects on measures of social competence or reading achievement.

Study 16

Barlow et al. (2015), Hennessey & Humphrey (2019), Humphrey et al. (2016), Humphrey, Barlow, & Lendrum et al. (2018), Humphrey, Hennessey et al. (2018), and Panayiotou et al. (2020) found only two significant program benefits in numerous tests for measures of socio-emotional competence, mental health, and English and math achievement tests. The intervention group had significantly higher teacher ratings of socio-emotional competence and higher child self-reported psychological well-being than the control group. However, a QED analysis demonstrated stronger effects for students who received most of the program lessons.

Study 17

Novak et al. (2017) found no significant main effects of the intervention for the full sample but found significant benefits for several outcomes among those classified as being low risk at baseline.

Study 18

Hindley & Reed (1999) found that the intervention children improved significantly more than the control children on self-image, emotional adjustment, and ability to recognize, label and understand emotions.

Study 19

Ross, Sheard et al. (2011) and Ross, Cheung et al. (2011) found that, relative to the control group, the intervention group did significantly better on several teacher-rated measures of empathy, perseverance, negative affect, and aggression, and on several child-assessed measures of emotional understanding, responses to challenging scenarios, and mutual understanding.

Outcomes

Across multiple studies, PATHS relative to a control group showed:

• Lower rate of conduct problems and externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression),
• Lower internalizing scores and depression,
• Better understanding of cues for recognizing feelings in others,
• Better ability to resolve peer conflicts, identify feelings, identify problems, and greater empathy for others,
• Less anger and attribution bias,
• Reduction in ADHD symptoms, and
• Better scores on measures of authority acceptance, cognitive concentration, and social competence.
• Higher test score proficiency in reading, writing, and math
• Reduction in adolescent delinquency
• Higher child-reported psychological well-being
• Higher teacher-reported emotional adjustment

Significant Program Effects on Risk and Protective Factors:

• Improvements in social problem solving, emotional understanding, and self-control,
• Higher scores on peer sociability and social school functioning.
• Higher teacher-rated socio-emotional competence
• Ability to recognize, label and understand emotions
• Mutual understanding and respect of other groups

Mediating Effects

Models used regression analyses in which the significance of the direct effect between intervention and later conduct problems were compared with and without entering the mediator into the model. Prevention impact on teacher reports of externalizing problems was partially mediated by emotion regulation (ß reduced from p <.01 to p =.26). A similar impact was also found for students' self-report of conduct problems in which emotion regulation partly mediated (ß reduced from p <.01 to p =.29). No mediational effects were found for either understanding of emotional cues or social problem-solving.

In a different study (Riggs et al., 2006), inhibitory control at immediate posttest significantly mediated the relation between experimental condition and both teacher-reported externalizing and internalizing behavior at 1-year follow-up.

Effect Size

For PATHS, the effect sizes of significant results were small to moderate (Malti et al. 2011). Compared to a control group, PATHS significantly reduced aggressive behavior across time (teacher reports: d=0.42; p<.05; parent reports: d=0.26, p<.05)

Generalizability

It is unknown if this program can be generalized to all special-needs classrooms or is better suited to a particular form of special needs child (e.g., behavioral problems vs. learning disabilities). Based on the overall success of multiple evaluations of the PATHS curriculum, however, it would appear that the program is generalizable to a wide array of hearing and deaf children in both regular and special needs classrooms. No analysis of effects by race was provided in any of the evaluations, but samples are generally ethnically/racially diverse. In two recent evaluations PATHS was found to be effective among children in elementary schools in Zurich, Switzerland (Malti et al., 2011; Averdijk et al., 2016). However, it was not effective among children in elementary schools in the Netherlands, Croatia, eastern Canada, Birmingham, England, or Manchester, England. A study in North Ireland found program benefits for attitudes and understanding.

Potential Limitations

Primary Evidence Base for Certification

Study 7

Malti et al. (2011, 2012), Averdijk et al. (2016)

• Researchers rating children may not have been masked to group membership
• No reliability or validity was reported for some outcome measures
• No baseline outcome controls (due to large gap in ages from baseline to follow up)
• Incomplete tests for baseline differences
• No tests for differential attrition
• Few significant findings for the PATHS-only condition

Additional Studies

Studies 1-2

Greenberg et al. (1995), Riggs et al. (2006)

Sample attrition in the first year of implementation was high and reduced the sample size significantly, thus reducing the power to accurately detect differences. High levels of student mobility further limited comparisons between students receiving one or two years of the intervention. No analysis of differential attrition or mobility was conducted for the full sample (although this was done for the regular classroom subsample), which would further inform the interpretations of the analyses.

Studies 3-6

Kam et al. (2004), Greenberg & Kusche (1998), Kam et al. (2003), Curtis & Norgate (2007)

Small sample sizes within treatment groups make it difficult to generalize the outcomes to larger, more diverse populations. No analyses of differential attrition were performed.

Study 8

Seifert et al. (2004)

• No pretest assessment, assessment of baseline equivalence, or information on attrition.
• The comparisons across cohorts may be confounded by time.
• Only outcomes based on interviewer ratings reached significance, not outcomes based on child self-reports.
• Interviewers rating children likely were not blinded to the condition.
• Reports of teacher dissatisfaction with the program suggest implementation problems.

Study 9

CPPRG (2010)

• A concurrent intervention for high-risk students meant that the sample excluded the worst behaving students and that the other ongoing intervention might have influenced the program outcomes.
• Baseline tests for equivalence compared schools but not children.
• Teachers who delivered the intervention also did ratings of classroom children, and results proved stronger for teacher ratings than child ratings.
• Attrition was high because the study was limited to children who had stayed in the same school for all three years, and differential attrition was apparent on several baseline measures.
• Contrary to intent-to-treat procedures, only students who participated in the program for all three years were followed and used in the analysis.

Study 10

Crean & Johnson (2013), SCDRC (2010)

• Teachers who delivered the program also provided some student measures
• Models adjusted for clustering but may have too few schools to obtain reliable estimates
• No effects on independent behavioral outcomes
• Some evidence of iatrogenic effects on conduct problems in first two years of the program

Study 11

Little et al. (2012), Berry et al. (2016)

• Randomized 64 schools but eight dropped out before baseline
• Most measures of children came from teachers who delivered the program
• Measures validated by others but no study-specific figures
• Incomplete tests for differential attrition
• No significant effects on behavioral outcomes

Study 12

Schonfeld et al. (2014)

• Not an intent-to-treat study - excluded those not participating in all four program years
• No tests for baseline equivalence of outcomes
• No controls for baseline scores
• Tests for differential attrition incomplete
• Sample from one large, urban school district

Study 13

Fishbein et al. (2016)

• No information on student-level attrition
• No information on reliability/validity provided for 8 of the 14 outcome measures
• Teachers who delivered the program also completed the assessments (with effects in favor of the treatment on 13 of the 13 teacher-rated measures)
• There was an effect on 15 out of 23 measures, but only 2 of these effects were assessed using independent measures (and it still wasn't clear whether those collecting these data were blind to condition)
• Small sample size (n = 4 schools, and schools were the unit of assignment)
• Incorrect level of analysis with no adjustment for unit of randomization (schools)

Study 14

Goossens et al. (2012)

• Non-random assignment of schools
• Many student measures came from teachers who delivered the program
• Adjusted for clustering, but the sample of 18 clusters may be too small for reliable estimates
• Tests for baseline equivalence showed many differences
• No reliable program effects

Study 15

David (2014)

• Non-random assignment of schools with only one control school
• Some student measures came from teachers who delivered the program
• Low reliabilities for some measures
• Incorrect level of analysis
• No tests for differential attrition
• No significant program effects
• Small sample of only three schools

Study 16

Barlow et al. (2015), Hennessey & Humphrey (2019), Humphrey et al. (2016), Humphrey, Barlow, & Lendrum (2018), Humphrey, Hennessey et al. (2018), Panayiotou et al. (2020)

• Some posttest child measures provided by teachers who delivered the program
• Evidence of differential attrition
• Few ITT effects at posttest, though stronger effects in QED complier analysis
• No program effects at long-term follow-up

Study 17

Novak et al. (2017)

• Teachers who delivered the program provided all child measures
• Adjusted for clustering within classrooms but not within schools, the unit of randomization
• No significant baseline differences for outcomes but no tests for sociodemographic characteristics
• No significant main effects at posttest, only effects for a low-risk subgroup

Study 18

Hindley & Reed (1999)

• Non-random assignment of schools/units (n = 7)
• Some measures came from teachers who delivered the program
• No reliability or validity information
• Unclear if used intent-to-treat sample
• Incorrect level of analysis
• Incomplete tests for baseline equivalence
• No tests for differential attrition

Study 19

Ross, Sheard et al. (2011), Ross, Cheung et al. (2011)

• Cluster RCT but one of 13 schools dropped out right after assignment and comparison schools adopted the program before the posttest
• Teachers who delivered programs provided behavioral measures of children
• Little information on reliability and validity of measures
• Did not attempt to follow the oldest students after they left middle school
• Incorrect level of analysis
• Baseline controls not always used
• Some baseline differences between conditions
• Incomplete tests for differential attrition
• No significant effects on independently measured behavioral outcomes

Notes

A preschool version of PATHS called Head Start REDI is treated as a separate program in Blueprints.

The PATHS curriculum has been integrated into the FAST track program, which seeks to integrate the provision of universal, selective, and indicated services into a comprehensive model that involves the child, school, family and community. Please see the FAST Track write-up for detailed information on this comprehensive program.

Riggs, Sakuma, and Pentz (2007) modified the PATHS program to address obesity (see writeup on PATHWAYS).

Riggs, N. R., Sakuma, K. K., & Pentz, M.A. (2007). Preventing risk for obesity by promoting self-regulation and decision-making skills. Evaluation Review, 31, 287-310.

Endorsements

Blueprints: Model
Crime Solutions: Effective
OJJDP Model Programs: Effective
SAMHSA : 2.6-3.2

Peer Implementation Sites

Denine Goolsby
Executive Director Humanware
Cleveland Public Schools
1111 Superior Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114
PH: 216-838-0107

Flavia Hernandez, Principal
McCormick Elementary School
Chicago Public Schools
2712 S. Sawyer Avenue
Chicago, IL 60623
PH: 773-535-7252

Carmen Navarro, Principal
Mariano Azuela Elementary School
Chicago Public Schools
3707 W. Marquette Road
Chicago, IL 60629
PH: 773-535-7395

Caroline Boxmeyer, Associate Professor University of Alabama
Hale County/Sawyerville Head Start Center
850th 5th Avenue East
Box 870326
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
PH: 205-348-1325

Program Information Contact

For curriculum and materials:
PATHS^® Program
Phone: 1-877-71PATHS or 1-877-717-2847
pathsprogram.com

For training:
PATHS^® Training
pathstraining.com

Also see:

SEL Worldwide
selworldwide.org
Contact: Dorothy Morelli
dorothy@selworldwide.org
dorothygm@hotmail.com
Phone: 615-364-6606