Print Page
Blueprints logo

Coping Power Universal

A preventative whole classroom-based intervention designed to reduce conduct problems and aggressive behaviors in elementary school children.

Fact Sheet

Program Outcomes

  • Conduct Problems
  • Externalizing
  • Positive Social/Prosocial Behavior

Program Type

  • School - Individual Strategies
  • Skills Training

Program Setting

  • School

Continuum of Intervention

  • Universal Prevention

Age

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

Gender

  • Both

Race/Ethnicity

  • All

Endorsements

Blueprints: Promising

Program Information Contact

Pietro Muratori, Ph.D.
IRCCS Stella Maris, Scientific Institute of Child Neurology and Psychiatry
Email: pietro.muratori@fsm.unipi.it

Iacopo Bertacchi, Ph.D.
IRCCS Stella Maris, Scientific Institute of Child Neurology and Psychiatry
Email: iacopobertacchi@hotmail.com

John Lochman, Ph.D.
The University of Alabama
Email: jlochman@ua.edu

Program Developer/Owner

Iacopo Bertacchi, John Lochman, and Pietro Muratori
Co-developers


Brief Description of the Program

Coping Power Universal (CPU) is an adaptation of the Coping Power intervention for at-risk children (rated Promising by Blueprints). With the goal of preventing behavioral problems in school-aged children, teachers deliver CPU to whole classrooms of elementary school children rather than to small groups. The program also omits the parent component of the original Coping Power. CPU includes 24 weekly sessions and focuses on skills related to understanding and communicating emotions as a basic step toward self-control.

Coping Power Universal (CPU) is an adaptation of the Coping Power intervention for at-risk children (rated Promising by Blueprints). With the goal of preventing behavioral problems in school-aged children, teachers deliver CPU to whole classrooms of elementary school children rather than to small groups. The program also omits the parent component of the original Coping Power.

CPU includes 24 weekly sessions. The CPU student curriculum focuses on skills related to understanding and communicating emotions as a basic step toward self-control. Initial lessons help children to understand the difference between feelings and behaviors, and appropriate and inappropriate behavioral responses. Next, lessons focus on self-control, awareness of feelings, awareness of physiological arousal related to anger, using self-statements for anger coping, and using relaxation. Finally, students are taught a sequence of problem-solving steps to address current classroom problems, and students act out the problem-solving steps to create a video-recorded example. Skill concepts are presented through direct instructions, discussion, and modeling stories. Role-playing activities give children a chance to practice the skills and teachers a chance to monitor the level of understanding and skill attainment by each class. The CPU intervention manual provides the structure and activities for each lesson; however, teachers are encouraged to adjust the level of presentation and amount of practice as dictated by the developmental level of each class. Additionally, teachers are encouraged to generalize their use of CPU concepts across the school day using a set of materials that allows them to reinforce program concepts.

Outcomes

In Study 1, Muratori et al. (2015, 2016) found that, relative to students in the control condition, students in the intervention condition showed significantly greater improvements in:

Posttest and 12-month Follow-up

  • Overall stress (total problems)
  • Hyperactivity/inattention
  • Prosocial behavior

12-month Follow-up only

  • School grades

In Study 2, Muratori et al. (2017) found that intervention students, relative to control students, significantly improved in:

  • Conduct problems
  • Emotional problems
  • Hyperactivity

In Study 3, Muratori et al. (2019) found that, relative to those assigned to the control condition, youth assigned to the intervention condition showed significantly greater improvements in:

  • Overall behavioral problems (teacher- and parent-rated)
  • Conduct problems (teacher- and parent-rated)
  • Hyperactivity (teacher-rated)
  • Peer problems (teacher-rated)
  • Prosocial behaviors (teacher- and parent-rated)

Brief Evaluation Methodology

Study 1 (Muratori et al., 2015; Muratori et al., 2016) randomized nine classrooms of first- and second-grade students (N=184) into intervention and control conditions and assessed measures of emotional, behavioral, and peer problems at pretest, posttest, and at 12-month follow-up.

Study 2 (Muratori et al., 2017) randomized 40 classrooms of third- and fourth-grade students (N=901) into the intervention (20 classrooms, 488 students) or control condition (20 classrooms, 413 students) and assessed measures of conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotional symptoms, and overall stress at baseline and posttest.

Study 3 (Muratori et al., 2019) randomized 70 classrooms of fourth- and fifth-grade students (N=1030) to the intervention condition (35 classrooms, 511 students) or a business-as-usual control (35 classrooms, 519 students). Teachers (who delivered the program) and parents (who were blind to condition) reported on youth conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotional symptoms, peer problems, and pro-social behavior at baseline and posttest.

Blueprints Certified Studies

Study 3

Muratori, P., Bertacchi, I., Masi, G., Milone, A., Nocentini, A., Powell, N. P., . . . Romero, D. (2019). Effects of a universal prevention program on externalizing behaviors: Exploring the generalizability of findings across school and home settings. Journal of School Psychology, 77, 13-23.


Risk and Protective Factors

Risk Factors

Individual: Antisocial/aggressive behavior, Hyperactivity

Protective Factors

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


* Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program

See also: Coping Power Universal Logic Model (PDF)

Race/Ethnicity/Gender Details

Race/Ethnicity/Gender Details

The samples for Studies 1 (Muratori et al., 2015) and 3 (Muratori et al., 2019) included predominantly white Italian students (80-90%).

Training and Technical Assistance

Coping Power Universal is a European program and has not been assessed by Blueprints for dissemination readiness in the United States. The program manual is currently available in Italian.

Teachers attend an initial 12-16-hour training workshop. A staff member, trained in the CPU model, delivers teachers' training and supervision. During training, the trainer provides information about the conceptual background of the program, the empirical basis of the program, and the specific activities to be implemented in each program's session. Training activities include discussion and role-play. During supervision meetings, participants review prior sessions, preview upcoming ones, and use problem-solving techniques around difficulties that teachers encountered when implementing the program. Teachers are capable of intervening after attending training provided by school psychologists.

Teachers, trained in CPU, would be trainers of new teachers in the following years. Teachers, trained in CPU, can also apply the intervention with future classes without incurring additional training costs for the school.

Benefits and Costs

Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy
All benefit-cost ratios are the most recent estimates published by The Washington State Institute for Public Policy for Blueprint programs implemented in Washington State. These ratios are based on a) meta-analysis estimates of effect size and b) monetized benefits and calculated costs for programs as delivered in the State of Washington. Caution is recommended in applying these estimates of the benefit-cost ratio to any other state or local area. They are provided as an illustration of the benefit-cost ratio found in one specific state. When feasible, local costs and monetized benefits should be used to calculate expected local benefit-cost ratios. The formula for this calculation can be found on the WSIPP website.

Program Costs


No information is available

Funding Strategies

Funding Overview

No information is available

Allocating State or Local General Funds

Local town government or school systems may provide the funding for training, supervision, manuals and supplies. 

Foundation Grants and Public-Private Partnerships

Private foundations may sponsor the CPU implementation in school settings. 

Evaluation Abstract

Program Developer/Owner

Iacopo Bertacchi, John Lochman, and Pietro MuratoriCo-developersIRCCS Stella Maris, Scientific Institute of Child Neurology and Psychiatry/The University of Alabamapietro.muratori@fsm.unipi.itjlochman@ua.edu

Program Outcomes

  • Conduct Problems
  • Externalizing
  • Positive Social/Prosocial Behavior

Program Specifics

Program Type

  • School - Individual Strategies
  • Skills Training

Program Setting

  • School

Continuum of Intervention

  • Universal Prevention

Program Goals

A preventative whole classroom-based intervention designed to reduce conduct problems and aggressive behaviors in elementary school children.

Population Demographics

The participants across multiple studies were in grades 1-5. The Blueprints-certified study (Muratori et al., 2019) was conducted with 4th and 5th graders.

Target Population

Age

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

Gender

  • Both

Race/Ethnicity

  • All

Race/Ethnicity/Gender Details

The samples for Studies 1 (Muratori et al., 2015) and 3 (Muratori et al., 2019) included predominantly white Italian students (80-90%).

Risk/Protective Factor Domain

  • Individual

Risk/Protective Factors

Risk Factors

Individual: Antisocial/aggressive behavior, Hyperactivity

Protective Factors

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


*Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program

Brief Description of the Program

Coping Power Universal (CPU) is an adaptation of the Coping Power intervention for at-risk children (rated Promising by Blueprints). With the goal of preventing behavioral problems in school-aged children, teachers deliver CPU to whole classrooms of elementary school children rather than to small groups. The program also omits the parent component of the original Coping Power. CPU includes 24 weekly sessions and focuses on skills related to understanding and communicating emotions as a basic step toward self-control.

Description of the Program

Coping Power Universal (CPU) is an adaptation of the Coping Power intervention for at-risk children (rated Promising by Blueprints). With the goal of preventing behavioral problems in school-aged children, teachers deliver CPU to whole classrooms of elementary school children rather than to small groups. The program also omits the parent component of the original Coping Power.

CPU includes 24 weekly sessions. The CPU student curriculum focuses on skills related to understanding and communicating emotions as a basic step toward self-control. Initial lessons help children to understand the difference between feelings and behaviors, and appropriate and inappropriate behavioral responses. Next, lessons focus on self-control, awareness of feelings, awareness of physiological arousal related to anger, using self-statements for anger coping, and using relaxation. Finally, students are taught a sequence of problem-solving steps to address current classroom problems, and students act out the problem-solving steps to create a video-recorded example. Skill concepts are presented through direct instructions, discussion, and modeling stories. Role-playing activities give children a chance to practice the skills and teachers a chance to monitor the level of understanding and skill attainment by each class. The CPU intervention manual provides the structure and activities for each lesson; however, teachers are encouraged to adjust the level of presentation and amount of practice as dictated by the developmental level of each class. Additionally, teachers are encouraged to generalize their use of CPU concepts across the school day using a set of materials that allows them to reinforce program concepts.

Theoretical Rationale

The contextual social-cognitive model serves as the theoretical foundation for the Coping Power Universal intervention by indicating the child social-cognitive characteristics on which an aggression prevention intervention should intervene to reduce aggressive behavioral problems. CPU aims to aims to improve child abilities such as emotional regulation strategies and problem-solving skills, which are linked to improved behavioral outcomes.

Theoretical Orientation

  • Skill Oriented
  • Cognitive Behavioral

Brief Evaluation Methodology

Study 1 (Muratori et al., 2015; Muratori et al., 2016) randomized nine classrooms of first- and second-grade students (N=184) into intervention and control conditions and assessed measures of emotional, behavioral, and peer problems at pretest, posttest, and at 12-month follow-up.

Study 2 (Muratori et al., 2017) randomized 40 classrooms of third- and fourth-grade students (N=901) into the intervention (20 classrooms, 488 students) or control condition (20 classrooms, 413 students) and assessed measures of conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotional symptoms, and overall stress at baseline and posttest.

Study 3 (Muratori et al., 2019) randomized 70 classrooms of fourth- and fifth-grade students (N=1030) to the intervention condition (35 classrooms, 511 students) or a business-as-usual control (35 classrooms, 519 students). Teachers (who delivered the program) and parents (who were blind to condition) reported on youth conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotional symptoms, peer problems, and pro-social behavior at baseline and posttest.

Outcomes (Brief, over all studies)

In Study 1, Muratori et al. (2015, 2016) found that, relative to students in the control condition, students in the intervention condition showed significantly greater improvements in overall stress (total problems), hyperactivity/inattention, and prosocial behavior at posttest and 12-month follow-up. School grades significantly improved for the intervention students at 12-month follow-up.

In Study 2, Muratori et al. (2017) found that intervention students, relative to control students, showed significant improvement in conduct problems, emotional problems, and hyperactivity.

In Study 3, Muratori et al. (2019) found that, relative to those assigned to the control condition, youth assigned to the intervention condition showed significantly reduced hyperactivity and peer problems as rated by teachers. In addition, intervention students exhibited significant improvements, compared to control students, in overall behavioral problems, conduct problems and prosocial behaviors per both teacher and parent reports.

Outcomes

In Study 1, Muratori et al. (2015, 2016) found that, relative to students in the control condition, students in the intervention condition showed significantly greater improvements in:

Posttest and 12-month Follow-up

  • Overall stress (total problems)
  • Hyperactivity/inattention
  • Prosocial behavior

12-month Follow-up only

  • School grades

In Study 2, Muratori et al. (2017) found that intervention students, relative to control students, significantly improved in:

  • Conduct problems
  • Emotional problems
  • Hyperactivity

In Study 3, Muratori et al. (2019) found that, relative to those assigned to the control condition, youth assigned to the intervention condition showed significantly greater improvements in:

  • Overall behavioral problems (teacher- and parent-rated)
  • Conduct problems (teacher- and parent-rated)
  • Hyperactivity (teacher-rated)
  • Peer problems (teacher-rated)
  • Prosocial behaviors (teacher- and parent-rated)

Mediating Effects

In the follow-up for Study 1 (Muratori et al. 2016), the program's significant effect on hyperactivity/inattention resulted in significant improvements to academic performance.

Effect Size

In the Study 1 follow-up, Muratori et al. (2016) demonstrated medium to very large effect sizes, with eta-squared ranging from .09 (for peer relational problems) to .44 (for school grades). Study 2 (Muratori et al. 2017) reported a small-medium effect size (d=.42) for hyperactivity and medium effect sizes (d=.52) for emotional symptoms and conduct problems. Study 3 (Muratori et al., 2019) only reported within-condition effect sizes.

Generalizability

Studies 1-3 (Muratori et al., 2015; Muratori et al., 2016; Muratori et al., 2017; Muratori et al., 2019) were all conducted in elementary schools in Italy.

Potential Limitations

Study 1: Muratori et al. (2015), Muratori et al. (2016)

  • Limited information about attrition/intent-to-treat
  • Outcome measures not independent

Study 2: Muratori et al. (2017)

  • Baseline equivalence tested only on outcome measures (no significance tests)
  • Outcome measures not independent
  • Tests for differential attrition were incomplete

Study 3: (Muratori et al., 2019)

  • Some outcome measures not independent (six teacher-rated outcomes but teachers delivered the intervention)

Endorsements

Blueprints: Promising

Program Information Contact

Pietro Muratori, Ph.D.
IRCCS Stella Maris, Scientific Institute of Child Neurology and Psychiatry
Email: pietro.muratori@fsm.unipi.it

Iacopo Bertacchi, Ph.D.
IRCCS Stella Maris, Scientific Institute of Child Neurology and Psychiatry
Email: iacopobertacchi@hotmail.com

John Lochman, Ph.D.
The University of Alabama
Email: jlochman@ua.edu

References

Study 1

Muratori, P., Bertacchi, I., Giuli, C., Lombardi, L., Bonetti, S., Nocentini, A., . . . Lochman, J. E. (2015). First adaptation of Coping Power program as a classroom-based prevention intervention on aggressive behaviors among elementary school children. Prevention Science, 16(3), 432-439.

Muratori, P., Bertacchi, I., Giuli, C., Nocentini, A., Ruglioni, L., & Lochman, J. E. (2016). Coping Power adapted as universal prevention program: Mid term effects on children's behavioral difficulties and academic grades. Journal of Primary Prevention, 37, 389-401.

Study 2

Muratori, P., Bertacchi, I., Giuli, C., Nocentini, A., & Lochman, J. E. (2017). Implementing Coping Power adapted as a universal prevention program in Italian primary schools: A randomized control trial. Prevention Science, 18, 754-761.

Study 3

Certified

Muratori, P., Bertacchi, I., Masi, G., Milone, A., Nocentini, A., Powell, N. P., . . . Romero, D. (2019). Effects of a universal prevention program on externalizing behaviors: Exploring the generalizability of findings across school and home settings. Journal of School Psychology, 77, 13-23.

Study 1

In this pilot study, both Coping Power Program (CPP)-certified trained psychologists and teachers delivered the program. In later studies, teachers delivered the program with CPP staff support.

Evaluation Methodology

Design:

Recruitment: Two primary schools (grades 1-5) from the Tuscany area of Italy agreed to participate in the study. Within the schools, nine teachers concerned about the lack of social skills and disruptive behavior of many children in their classrooms agreed to participate in the study. The nine classes of the teachers included 184 first- and second-grade students, and all parents consented to the participation and assessment of their children.

Assignment: The nine classrooms were randomly assigned to the intervention and control conditions. The intervention group comprised three first-grade classes and one second-grade class from the Capannori area and one second-grade class from the Lucca area. The control sample comprised two first-grade classes from the Lucca area and two second-grade classes from the Capannori area. The intervention classrooms added the weekly Coping Power Program sessions, while the control classrooms continued their academic curriculum as usual.

Assessments/Attrition: Assessments occurred at baseline, posttest immediately following program completion, and at 12-month follow-up. There was no attrition from baseline to posttest, but there was an 8% (N=22) loss from posttest to the follow-up assessment on behavioral measures and a 23% loss (N=42) at follow-up on academic records.

Sample: The average age of the first- and second-grade students was 7.5. There was a near even split between boys and girls, while 80-84% of the children were Italian. Based on the percentile distribution (e.g., 9.2% has scores over the 90th percentile), the sample appeared typical in terms of overall stress or total problems.

Measures:

All measures came from the teachers who helped deliver the program.

Five Behavioral Measures came from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (with the Italian translation and norms). The SDQ is a 25-item questionnaire used to assess conduct problems (e.g., bullying), hyperactivity (e.g., squirming), emotional symptoms (e.g., worrying), peer problems (e.g., disliked by other children), and prosocial behavior (e.g., helping). The SDQ-Overall Stress is the total score of the scale indicating general problematic behaviors. The mean Cronbach's alpha was .82.

Academic Performance was assessed using course grades for language arts and mathematics, as obtained from school records.

Analysis: To adjust for the nesting of individuals within classes and the randomization of classes, the analysis used linear mixed model estimation. Tests of the intervention came from coefficients for group-by-time interactions and implicitly controlled for baseline outcomes.

In the follow-up, a mixed factorial ANOVA (three time points x two conditions) was used to test the intervention effect, and a cross-lagged meditational model was used to test the intervention's indirect mechanism of behavioral improvements on academic performance.

Intent-to-Treat: The analysis likely used an intent-to-treat sample, although it did not state that explicitly.

Outcomes

Implementation Fidelity: Using videos of all the intervention sessions of four classes, a certified supervisor completed a checklist about variations from the manual during the three phases included in a session. The mean score of the intervention adherence standard checklist, based on a Likert scale from 1 to 4, was 2.90 though the follow-up lists the mean score as 3.60.

Baseline Equivalence: The study stated that there were no significant baseline differences between conditions on demographic factors or teacher-reported SDQ scales. The intervention group had three first-grade classes compared to two in the control group, but the mean age of the two groups did not differ significantly.

Differential Attrition: There was no attrition at posttest, but 8% of students dropped out between posttest and follow-up. Analyses revealed that dropouts had significantly lower baseline levels of prosocial behaviors. Course grades at 12-month follow-up could only be obtained from 77% of the baseline sample, with no assessment of whether this differed by condition or other sample characteristics.

Posttest: A significant group-by-time interaction emerged for 3 of 6 tests. The intervention group did significantly better than the control group on prosocial behaviors, hyperactivity/inattention problems, and overall stress (or total problems).

Long-Term: At 12-month follow-up, compared to the control group, the intervention group showed a significant improvement in overall stress, hyperactivity/inattention, prosocial behavior, and school grades. Mediation analyses revealed that the intervention's significant reduction of hyperactivity/attention problems accounted for the significant increases in academic performance.

Study 2

Evaluation Methodology

Design:

Recruitment: Pubic elementary schools in Lucca, Pisa, and Spoleto Italy were recruited to participate in the study. Six schools agreed to participate, and all third- and fourth-grade classes (n = 40 classes, 901 students) in these schools were selected.

Assignment: The 40 classes were randomly assigned to either treatment or control (20 classes and 488 students in treatment, 20 classes and 413 students in control). The treatment group included 10 third-grade classes and 10 fourth-grade classes, and though not explicitly stated it appeared the control group had the same breakdown.

Assessments/Attrition: Teachers completed assessments at baseline and posttest immediately following program completion. It was reported on p.757 that: "The students with complete data at both times were 841; attrition involved 6.72% of the students."

Sample: Sample characteristics were not reported.

Measures: Teachers delivered the program and also completed the outcome measures. The assessment included the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997; Tobia et al., 2011), which is a 25-item questionnaire designed to assess the occurrence of particular behaviors that have been associated with conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotional symptoms, peer problems, and prosocial behavior in children aged 4-16. In this study, SDQ-Overall Stress was measured, which is the total score of the four scales indicating general problematic behaviors: 1) conduct problems, 2) hyperactivity, 3) emotional symptoms, and 4) peer problems. In addition to assessing the total scale score, except for peer problems, each scale was also measured separately. Sample alphas were .83 for conduct problems, .86 for hyperactivity, and .84 for emotional symptoms.

Analysis: A 3-level model (which measured occasion within individuals, within classes, and within schools) was conducted with each student outcome using a random-intercept (fit to account for within classes and within schools). There were no controls for demographic variables.

Intent-to-Treat: It appeared that all participants were analyzed according to the condition in which they were assigned and all available data were utilized which is in line with intent-to-treat protocol.

Outcomes

Implementation Fidelity: Interventionists completed a measure of fidelity after completing each intervention session, rating whether they had covered each session objective "completely," "partially," or "not at all." The program leaders indicated that they "completely" (89% child group) or "partially" (11% child group) completed group intervention objectives, indicating a high rate of self-reported intervention fidelity. After each intervention session, teachers also completed a questionnaire that investigated the theoretical and practical preparation of the teachers on the daily session activities and principles. A certified Coping Power supervisor verified the percentage of correct answers: 87% of the answers were corrected in the current study.

Baseline Equivalence: Baseline equivalence was tested only on outcome measures, and it was unclear whether significance tests were conducted (see Table 2).

Differential Attrition: It was reported on p.757 that: "No significant differences were found between those who completed both data collections and those who completed only the baseline evaluation." Attrition-by-condition tests, however, were not conducted.

Posttest: At the posttest, compared to control group students, students in the treatment group were significantly less likely to experience conduct problems and less likely to exhibit hyperactive behaviors and emotional problems.

Long-Term: Not conducted.

Study 3

Evaluation Methodology

Design:

Recruitment: Six schools in a disadvantaged area of an Italian city were selected for the study. The researchers contacted the principals of these schools and all agreed to participate. Inclusion criteria were: (1) the child had to be in fourth or fifth grade; and (2) the child's parents agreed to be involved. No parents asked to exclude their children from the study. The sample comprised 1,030 students attending 70 primary school classrooms in the six schools.

Assignment: Cluster randomization by classroom (35 classrooms assigned to treatment and 35 classrooms assigned to control) was completed by an independent researcher after all participants had completed the baseline assessment. Of the 1,030 youth in the six schools that agreed to participate, 511 attended classrooms assigned to the treatment condition and 519 attended classrooms assigned to the control condition that continued business as usual. The program lasted from November 2016 to April 2017.

Assessments/Attrition: Assessments occurred at baseline, in the fall of the school year, and at posttest, near the end of the school year and about one month after program completion. Complete data at both time points were obtained for 994 students, indicating minimal attrition (< 5%).

Sample: Students were in fourth or fifth grade and had an average age of 9.24 years. Approximately 11% of the sample identified as African American, with the remainder identifying as Caucasian. Thirty-five children had an intellectual disability and eight children had a sensory disability. Teachers involved in the project had a mean number of 10 years of experience with children.

Measures: Teachers (who delivered the program) and parents (who were blind to condition) reported on youth total problem behaviors, conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotional symptoms, peer problems, and prosocial behaviors using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Alpha reliabilities in the current sample ranged from α = 0.80 (parent-reported emotional symptoms) to α = 0.88 (teacher-reported prosocial behaviors).

Analysis: The researchers tested for intervention effects using four-level linear mixed-effects random-intercept models to account for within-subjects correlations, within-classroom correlations, and within-school correlations. Analyses were conducted using full maximum likelihood estimation, with measurement occasion (Level 1) nested within individuals (Level 2) nested within classrooms (Level 3) nested within schools (Level 4). The time measure included the baseline outcomes, and tests for program effects examined the time-by-experimental group interactions.

Intent-to-Treat: All available data were used in FIML analyses.

Outcomes

Implementation Fidelity: Teachers self-reported that they delivered 88% of the elements of the intervention sessions. They also showed a mean fidelity score of 62 out of 72 based on questions about their understanding of key program principles. Finally, the school psychologist observed recordings of 20% of the sessions, which showed that 84% of the reported levels of adherence were good or excellent.

Baseline Equivalence: The authors only stated that no significant differences were detected in baseline demographics or outcomes.

Differential Attrition: Minimal attrition (< 5%) occurred over the course of the study. In addition, the researchers stated that "no significant differences were found between children who completed evaluations at both time points and those who completed only the baseline evaluation" (p. 15-16).

Posttest: One month after the intervention, relative to control participants, children in the intervention condition showed significantly greater improvements in five of six non-independent teacher-rated outcomes (youth total problem behaviors, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems, and prosocial behavior) and three of six independent parent-rated outcomes (youth total problem behaviors, conduct problems, prosocial behavior).

Long-Term: Not conducted.