Program Profile: Coping Power Program

This is a cognitive-based intervention for aggressive children and for their parents to increase the children’s competence, study skills, social skills, and self-control during the transition to middle school. The program is rated Promising. There were mixed results on self-reported delinquency, but treatment group children showed a statistically significant reduction in substance use and improvement in aggressive behavior, compared with control group children.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

Program Goals

The Coping Power Program (CPP) is a cognitive-based intervention delivered to aggressive children and their parents during the children’s transition to middle school. The program aims to increase competence, study skills, social skills, and self-control in aggressive children as well as to improve parental involvement in their child’s education.

Program Components/Target Population

The program has a component aimed at the parents of children in intervention classrooms. The child component of CPP lasts 16 months and includes 22 fifth grade sessions and 12 sixth grade sessions. The parent component is administered over 16 sessions, which provides the parents with instruction on parenting skills, including rule setting, appropriate punishment, stress management, and family communication.

The parent component concentrates on parenting and stress-management skills, while the child component involves the use of school-based focus groups and emphasizes anger management and social problem–solving skills. Parents also meet with CPP staff to help them understand and prepare for future adolescence-related and general education issues, and to give them the tools necessary for a smooth transition to middle school.

Program Theory

The CPP is a multicomponent intervention based heavily on cognitive–behavioral therapy, which emphasizes increasing and exercising parenting skills and the child’s social skills. The child component of CPP draws from anger management programs that concentrate on decision-making, attributions, and peer pressure.

Study

Lochman and Wells (2003) evaluated the effectiveness of the Coping Power Program (CPP) among aggressive children identified in the fourth grade, with the intervention taking place in the fifth and sixth grades. This study examined results at the 1-year follow-up looking in particular at delinquency, substance use, and school behavior outcomes. After the researchers identified moderate- to high-risk aggressive children and received parental consent, 245 children were randomized into intervention and control conditions. The children were spread out through 60 fifth grade classrooms in 17 elementary schools. There were four randomized groups with 59 subjects in Coping Power–only condition, 61 in the Coping Power and classroom intervention condition, 62 in the classroom-only condition, and 63 subjects in the control condition. There were no significant differences among the groups in terms of aggressive behavior, demographic factors, or teacher-assessed cognitive functioning. The sample had a 2-to-1 boy-to-girl ratio and was predominantly African American (about 75 percent) and white. The classroom intervention, known as Coping With the Middle School Transitions, includes a teacher component in which they meet with Coping Power staff members for five 2-hour sessions. These sessions were used to discuss problem solving around the issue of aggression and to present the CPP format.

The delinquency outcomes were assessed with child self-report surveys based on questions from the National Youth Survey. The substance abuse outcomes were also measured with child self-report, while aggressive behavior in a school setting was measured using the Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation—Revised. Results collected at the 1-year follow-up were tested with analysis of variance (aka ANOVA) and analysis of covariance (or ANCOVA), using generalized linear models. The authors conducted subgroup analyses on risk level, gender, age, baseline aggression level, and race.

Study

Lochman and Wells (2004) reported the results of their 15-month evaluation of the CPP. In winter 1997, baseline assessment took place of fourth and fifth grade boys with treatment delivered in the spring and during the following academic year. The final sample had two experimental conditions: a CPP with parent intervention (n = 60) and CPP for children only (n = 60). There were 63 children in the control group. In addition to these three groups of aggressive children, a normative sample of 63 children was also used. The child component consisted of 8 sessions in the first year and 25 in the second year, with each session lasting between 40 and 60 minutes. The parent component consisted of 16 group sessions over the intervention period. There were no significant differences among the three at-risk groups. The total sample was made up of 55 percent fourth graders and 45 percent fifth graders and was 61 percent African American and 28 percent white.

Child measures were taken 1 year after the intervention, while parent measures were taken 6 months postintervention. The National Youth Survey (NYS) provided outcome measures for delinquency, which were separated into overt (minor assault, felony assault, robbery) and covert (minor theft, felony theft, fraud, destruction of property). The NYS also provided the outcomes for the child self-report of substance use. Additionally a parent report of the child’s substance use was used, as well as a teacher assessment of the child’s behavioral improvement. Results were tested with either ANOVAs, ANCOVAs, or multiple analysis of covariance (MANOVAs), using the generalized linear model. The authors conducted subgroup analyses on risk level, age, and race.

Study

The Zonnevylle–Bender and colleagues (2007) study examined the effects of the CPP program on children with disruptive behavior disorder in the city of Utrecht in the Netherlands. Children were randomized to the treatment and care as usual control group. Children were recruited from psychiatric outpatient clinics over a period of 3 years. To be eligible for inclusion in the study, they had to be between 8 and 13 years old. They additionally had to be living within a family structure, meet an IQ threshold, and have been diagnosed with disruptive behavior disorder. Final sample sizes for participants in the study were 30 in the treatment group and 31 in the control group. There were no significant baseline differences between groups. All subjects were white; 87 percent of the treatment group and 90 percent of the control group were male. At the beginning of the study, the average age of the treatment group was 9.9 years; it was 10.3 years for the control group. The CPP treatment never lasted more than 9 months; it included 23 weekly sessions with children and 25 parent sessions.

Measures were taken 5 years after treatment began. Substance use was assessed using a self-report instrument adapted from the California Student Survey, while delinquency was assessed using the National Youth Survey questionnaire. The authors used one-factor ANOVAs to test results from delinquency self-report, while the substance use measures were tested with Pearson’s chi-squared analyses. The authors did not conduct subgroup analyses.

The Coping Power Program website notes that active support is required from school administrators and teachers for successful replication. Elementary and middle schools wishing to adopt the program should ensure that they have at least one full-time, master’s-level counselor or other staff with related functions and similar qualifications. Additionally, Child Component group sessions take place during school, lasting 50 minutes and usually include five children. For more information visit the Coping Power Program website at http://www.copingpower.com/

Subgroup Analysis

Lochman and Wells (2003) conducted subgroup analyses on risk level, gender, age, neighborhood, and race. The analyses revealed that older and moderate-risk students who in participated in the Coping Power Program (CPP) reported lower substance use, compared with similar students in the control group. However, there were no statistically significant differences between younger and high-risk treatment children and control group children in reported substance use. The results also indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between CPP program participants across gender, race (Black or white), or neighborhood (high crime or low crime). In addition, there were no statistically significant differences among low-, moderate-, and high-risk boys who participated in CPP. In contrast, parents of white boys rated their children lower on substance use and higher on improved school behavior than did parents of minority boys, most of whom were Black. This difference was statistically significant. However, there were no statistically significant differences between white boys and minority boys on measures of delinquency.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Boxmeyer, Caroline Lewczyk, John E. Lochman, Nicole Powell, Anna Yaros, and Mary Wojnaroski. 2007. “A Case Study of the Coping Power Program for Angry and Aggressive Youth.” Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy 37:167–74.

Cabiya, José J., Lymaries Padilla–Cotto, Karelyn González, Jovette Sanchez–Cestero, Alfonso Martínez–Taboas, and Sean Sayers. 2008. “Effectiveness of a Cognitive–Behavioral Intervention for Puerto Rican Children.” Interamerican Journal of Psychology 42(2):195–202.

Ellis, Mesha L., Michael A. Lindsey, Edward D. Barker, Caroline L. Boxmeyer, and John E. Lochman. 2013. “Predictors of Engagement in a School-Based Family Preventive Intervention for Youth Experiencing Behavioral Difficulties.” Prevention Science 14:457–67.

Lochman, John E., Caroline Lewczyk Boxmeyer, Nicolle Powell, Lixin Qu, Karen C. Wells, and Michael Windle. 2009. “Dissemination of the Coping Power Program: Importance of Intensity of Counselor Training.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 77(3):397–409.

Lochman, John E., Nicole Powell, Caroline Lewczyk Boxmeyer, Lixin Qu, Karen C. Wells, and Michael Windle. 2009. “Implementation of a School-Based Prevention Program: Effects of Counselor and School Characteristics.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 40(5):476–82.

Lochman, John E., and Karen C. Wells. 2002. “The Coping Power Program at the Middle-School Transition: Universal and Indicated Prevention Effects.” Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 16(4S):S40–54.

Lochman, John E., Karen C. Wells, Lixin Qu, and Lei Chen. 2013. “Three Year Follow-up of Coping Power Intervention Effects: Evidence of Neighborhood Moderation?” Prevention Science 14:364–76.

van de Wiel, Nicolle M.H., Walter Matthys, Peggy T. Cohen–Kettenis, and Herman van Engeland. 2003. “Application of the Utrecht Coping Power Program and Care as Usual to Children With Disruptive Behavior Disorders in Outpatient Clinics: A Comparative Study of Cost and Course of Treatment.” Behavior Therapy 34:421–36.

van de Wiel, Nicolle M.H., Walter Matthys, Peggy T. Cohen–Kettenis, Gerald H. Maassen, John E. Lochman, and Herman van Engeland. 2007. “The Effectiveness of an Experimental Treatment When Compared to Care as Usual Depends on the Type of Care as Usual.” Behavior Modification 31(3):298–312.