Program Profile: Take CHARGE! Curriculum for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

This is a curriculum that targets students with emotional and behavioral disorders, with the overall goal of improving knowledge and development of social problem-solving skills. The program is rated Effective. Students who participated in the Take CHARGE! program had a statistically significant greater likelihood of reporting increased knowledge of and improvements in problem-solving behaviors, compared with students who did not participate.

An Effective rating implies that implementing the program is likely to result in the intended outcome(s).

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

An Effective rating implies that implementing the program is likely to result in the intended outcome(s).

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

Program Goals/Target Population

Take CHARGE! is a social problem-solving curriculum that targets students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). The program seeks to improve students’ knowledge and development of social problem-solving skills (Van Loan et al. 2019). The program is a classroom-based intervention targeting middle/junior high school students with EBD, defined as “a disability in the capacity to adapt” (Farmer 2013, p. 36), who exhibit social deficits and behavior problems. The inability to adapt to the social environment often results in youth with EBD experiencing isolation and rejection, both of which hinder their ability to form prosocial networks and successful academic and behavioral outcomes (Van Loan et al. 2019).

Program Theory

The Take CHARGE! curriculum is based on a social information-processing model (Dodge 1993; Van Loan et al. 2019). The social information-processing model suggests that an individual’s behavior is the result of their thoughts as they experience stimuli, what they focus on as they interpret the experience, and how they act (Crick and Dodge 1994). One approach to address how students with EBD experience stimuli and their resulting actions is through the use of cognitive–behavioral interventions, particularly social problem-solving. Cognitively based instruction in social problem-solving is founded on the premise that not only is an individual’s behavior a product of their thoughts, but also that by addressing their cognitive processes, the individual’s behavior will generalize to different situations. However, individuals must be taught to recognize the problem, define the problem, generate solutions, evaluate outcomes from solutions, act on a solution, and assess the outcome. By teaching youth to use a cognitive–behavioral approach, they learn about self-regulation of aggressive thoughts, which can ultimately reduce impulsive responses while increasing prosocial responses (Van Loan et al. 2019).

Program Components

Take CHARGE! is a 26-lesson curriculum based on Tools for Getting Along: Teaching Students to Problem Solve (Daunic et al. 2011; Smith et al. 2016). There are 20 core lessons and six booster lessons. The 20 core lessons last from 30 to 40 minutes each. During the core lessons, individuals are introduced to problem-solving and its six key steps: 1) Check (focusing on checking if you are angry), 2) Hold on (focusing on calming down and thinking), 3) Analyze (determining the cause), 4) Reflect (thinking about possible solutions), 5) Go for it (choosing a solution), and 6) Evaluate (determining what happened). In total, these six steps are taught over 15 lessons, and the other 5 lessons are devoted to role-playing the six steps. The core lessons are conducted three times a week for 7 weeks. Following the core lessons, individuals participate in six booster lessons, which provide the opportunity for review. Booster lessons are conducted twice a week for 3 weeks. Overall, the intervention lasts 10 weeks.

Lessons include a review of previous material, new material, and activities for both guided and self-practice. The curriculum also includes the teacher exhibiting overt self-talk, teachable moments, and on-the-spot assessments. Overt self-talk involves teachers revealing their inner thoughts and the processes they use to solve social problems. This allows students to learn a model they can adopt to solve social problems. On-the-spot assessments give the teacher and student an opportunity to assess the student’s use of social problem-solving skills.

Study

Van Loan and colleagues (2019) used a pre- and post-randomized controlled trial with a waitlist control group to evaluate the effects of Take CHARGE! on students’ knowledge and development of social problem-solving skills.

Schools were solicited, and permission was obtained from 11 middle schools in four low-income rural counties in a Southeastern state. Schools were informed that they had an equal chance of being assigned to the treatment or control group. Matching and random assignment occurred at the school level. Assignment to the treatment or control group occurred by pairwise matching, or blocking groups into strata, by ranking schools according to their salient characteristics. For example, schools were first paired by the total number of students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), followed by racial composition, and lastly by class size. High-poverty schools were equally distributed across the treatment and control groups. Time between pre- and posttest was limited to 11 weeks to control for events outside of the intervention to account for differences between the treatment and control groups. The final sample yielded 11 schools, 11 teachers, and 92 students. Forty-nine students and five teachers were in the treatment group, and 43 students and six teachers were in the control group. Overall, there were 69 males and 23 females, with a mean age of 13.3 years. In terms of racial breakdown, the sample included African American (n = 48), white (n = 33), Hispanic/Latino (n = 5), and six students in the “Other” category. There were no statistically significant differences between students in the treatment group and control group on any demographic variables.

The outcomes of interest were social problem-solving knowledge and approaches to problem-solving. Social problem-solving knowledge was measured by the Knowledge Questionnaire (Daunic et al. 2006), which comprised 11 multiple-choice questions and 5 fill-in-the-blank/short answer questions. Sample questions included “Check all the ways your body may feel when you are angry”, and “What are three levels of anger, from lowest to highest?”. Approaches to problem-solving were measured by the Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised (D’Zurilla et al. 2002), which comprised 52 Likert-type questions that include five scales: 1) Positive Problem Orientation, 2) Negative Problem Orientation, 3) Impulsive/Careless, 4) Rational/Adaptive Problem Solving, and 5) Avoidance. Sample questions included, “When solving problems, I think of different ideas and combine some of them to make a better solution”, and “I try to look at problems in different ways before choosing a solution.” There were no statistically significant differences between students in the treatment group and control group on the pretest assessments of outcome measures.

To determine the influence of the Take CHARGE! curriculum on students’ knowledge and development of social problem-solving skills, hierarchical linear models were used: one for the social problem-solving knowledge outcome, and one for the approaches to the problem-solving outcome. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

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

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

Crick, Nicki R., and Kenneth A. Dodge. 1994. “A Review and Reformulation of Social Information-Processing Mechanisms in Children's Social Adjustment.” Psychological Bulletin 115(1):74–101.

Daunic, Ann P., Stephen W. Smith, Eve M. Brank, and Randall D. Penfield. 2006. “Classroom-Based Cognitive–Behavioral Intervention to Prevent Aggression: Efficacy and Social Validity.” Journal of School Psychology 44(2):123–39.

Daunic, Ann P., Stephen W. Smith, Cynthia W. Garvan, Brian R. Barber, Mallory K. Becker, Christine D. Peters, Gregory G. Taylor, Christopher L. Van Loan, Wei Li, and Arlene H. Naranjo. 2012. “Reducing Developmental Risk for Emotional/Behavioral Problems: A Randomized Controlled Trial Examining the Tools for Getting Along Curriculum.” Journal of School Psychology 50(2):149–66.

Dodge, Kenneth A. 1993. “The Future of Research on the Treatment of Conduct Disorder.” Development and Psychopathology 5(1-2):311–19.

D’Zurilla, Thomas J., Arthur M. Nezu, and Albert Maydeu-Olivares. 2002. Manual for the Social Problem-Solving Inventory–Revised. North Tonawanda, New York: Multi-Health Systems.

Farmer, Thomas W. 2013. “When Universal Approaches and Prevention Services Are Not Enough: The Importance of Understanding the Stigmatization of Special Education for Students with EBD—a Response to Kauffman and Badar.” Behavioral Disorders 39(1):32–42.

Smith, Stephen W., Ann P. Daunic, Burak Aydin, Christopher L. Van Loan, Brian R. Barber, and Gregory G. Taylor. 2016. “Effect of Tools for Getting Along on Student Risk for Emotional and Behavioral Problems in Upper Elementary Classrooms: A Replication Study.” School Psychology Review 45(1):73–92.