How Can Secondary Schools Be More Family Centered

Prev Sci. Author manuscript; bachelor in PMC 2009 Sep 1.

Published in final edited form as:

PMCID: PMC2730147

NIHMSID: NIHMS129177

An Adaptive Approach to Family-Centered Intervention in Schools: Linking Intervention Engagement to Academic Outcomes in Eye and High Schoolhouse

Elizabeth A. Stormshak

Counseling Psychology Program, Child and Family Centre, University of Oregon, 195 W twelfth Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401-3408, USA

Arin Connell

Psychology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United states of america

Thomas J. Dishion

Psychology and School Psychology, Kid and Family Center, University of Oregon, 195 West 12th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401-3408, U.s.

Abstract

This study examined the impact of an adaptive approach to family unit intervention in public schools on academic outcomes from age 11 to 17. Students were randomly assigned to the three-session Family Check-Up (FCU), which is designed to motivate change in parenting practices by using an assessment-driven approach and strengths-based feedback. All services were voluntary, and approximately 25% of the families engaged in the FCU. Compared with matched controls, adolescents whose parents received the FCU maintained a satisfactory GPA into loftier school, and intervention appointment was associated with improved omnipresence. The highest-risk families were the most likely to engage in the family unit-centered intervention, suggesting the efficacy of integrating supportive services to families in the context of other schoolwide approaches to promote the success and achievement of vulnerable students.

Keywords: Family intervention, Dosage, GPA, School absenteeism, Early adolescence

A cornerstone of an ecological perspective on child and adolescent evolution is that children'southward experiences in one relationship context can affect development across settings (Bronfenbrenner 1989). Parent–child interaction in full general and family unit direction skills in particular are robust predictors of a multifariousness of child behavior problems and negative outcomes for youth beyond multiple settings (Loeber and Dishion 1983; Patterson and Dishion 1988; Peterson et al. 1994). Patterns of interaction learned in the context of parent–kid exchanges are typically generalized to school settings, leading to the development of later on behavior problems, academic difficulties, and school dropout (Dishion and Loeber 1985; Loeber et al. 1993; Patterson et al. 1989). Considerable evidence supports a developmental model that links cardinal family management skills such as depression levels of parental monitoring with babyhood hating behavior, academic failure, peer rejection, and emotional distress (e.thousand., Patterson and Stouthamer-Loeber 1984; Pettit et al. 1993; Stormshak et al. 2000; Webster-Stratton 1993). As children develop into adolescents, parents' and limit-setting practices may exacerbate existing beliefs problems and bookish difficulties and failure (Dishion and McMahon 1998).

Parents play a disquisitional part in promoting bookish success through parent–school involvement, stimulation of cognitive growth at domicile, and promotion of values consistent with academic achievement (Greenwood and Hickman 1991; McMahon et al. 1996). Parents' academic and school involvement is related to reduced behavior problems and academic achievement over time (Hill et al. 2004). In adolescence, low academic achievement is associated with a variety of health risk behaviors, including substance corruption, teen sex, depression, and violence (Hawkins 1997; Larson and Ham 1993). Given the link between parenting proficiency and student success, it would seem plausible that interventions targeting family direction skills will both reduce problem behavior and increase academic accomplishment.

Some may find it puzzling that very few intervention programs that directly target family management skills show evidence of improving academic achievement and schoolhouse-related outcomes, specially in boyhood. At that place are several potential reasons for this lack of findings. First, it may exist that most intervention enquiry is not funded to follow children long enough to measure changes in academic accomplishment. Collecting schoolhouse data for an extended time is expensive and difficult. Information technology may also be that many family-centered parenting programs focus too narrowly on parenting at dwelling house and place little accent on schoolhouse problem behavior. The parenting interventions that are delivered and studied vary widely: Some focus on overall schoolhouse achievement, and others are more than limited in scope (Mattingly et al. 2002).

Multiple intervention trials undertaken during the unproblematic schoolhouse years have specifically targeted both youth bookish skills and family unit skills in an effort to enhance youth academic accomplishment (Hawkins et al. 1992; Tolan et al. 2004). These programs typically include commitment of a parenting intervention, academic tutoring, or reading back up. Programs that include a parenting intervention in a larger, multifaceted intervention package take had a positive impact on school-related outcomes or achievement-related constructs such as cocky-regulation and school engagement. For example, the Fast Track program was delivered to children and families starting in the start grade and extending through high school. Youth in the program received academic tutoring, peer tutoring, and support for social skills, and their families engaged in an extensive parenting plan. After iii years in the program, children who participated showed a reduction in special education referrals. They were less likely to have an individualized education plan or be identified with a learning or behavioral problem (CPPRG 2002). These positive academic achievement outcomes may have resulted from the private tutoring that each child received or from the parenting programme and parent–school involvement intervention components.

Similarly, multifaceted intervention programs that include parent training as well equally youth social skills and academic support take been shown to reduce self-regulation problems and increment school engagement, outcomes that are directly linked to bookish skills at school (August et al. 2001; Hawkins et al. 2001). These results could be attributed to the parenting component of the program or to other components that more direct targeted academic success. Information technology is impossible to tease apart the effects of individual intervention components in a multifaceted intervention, and therefore information technology remains unclear whether or not parenting interventions directly bear on academic outcomes.

For adolescents, very few research programs have combined direct academic support with parent-training interventions within one intervention package. Recently, Spoth et al. (2008) published results of a family competency-training intervention program. They found that the family unit-based intervention in 6th grade through twelfth grade had a positive bear upon on outcomes such as gamble of substance utilize, schoolhouse engagement, and academic functioning through a key mediator: parenting competencies.

In a developmental–ecological model of intervention, transitions stand for critical points for intervention efficacy (Cicchetti and Toth 1992; Sameroff 2000). The goal of targeting youth during a critical transition is to maintain evolution on a positive trajectory and to reduce risks typically associated with the transition. We are particularly interested in the transition from middle schoolhouse to high school as a point of intervention because of its twofold nature. Offset, changing school contexts presents a demand on youth to increase self-regulation and autonomy. Conspicuously, the demands of the loftier schoolhouse setting pose additional risks for underachieving youth. Expectations include increased cocky-monitoring of homework and school responsibilities and increased self-direction of behavior. Eccles and colleagues (1993, 1995) have discussed the poor fit between the organizational structure of loftier schools and the needs of young adolescents. In general, the increased complexity of the typical middle school structure demands more cocky-regulation and involves less tracking and supervision by school personnel.

The 2nd level to the centre school transition is the onset of puberty and children's increasing attention to and potential influence by peers (Brown 1989). The pull of biologically based motivations and the increased complexity of the school environment brand information technology difficult for parents to rail adolescents and to take a positive touch on on their bookish success, affiliation with peers, and even school attendance. Youth involved in problem behavior, in particular, will actively discourage parent involvement and tracking and then as to create more unsupervised time with peers, which in turn will amplify problem beliefs and school issues (Dishion et al. 2004; Stoolmiller 1994). Changes in peer group composition and increased unsupervised time with peers pose additional risks for youth, especially those already at risk (Dishion and Stormshak 2007). Given these considerations, early boyhood is a critical transition point in which a family-centered intervention may provide opportunities to alter developmental trajectories of take chances for adolescent problem behavior and school failure (Coie et al. 1993). The Family Check-Up (FCU) intervention was designed to address these take chances factors during the transition to high school past embedding a family-centered model of intervention into the middle school system (Dishion and Stormshak 2007).

The Family Check-Upwards Intervention Model

The FCU, described in detail past Dishion and Stormshak (2007), is a preventive intervention based on a health maintenance model that is advisable for high-risk youth. The FCU targets parental engagement and motivates parents to amend their parenting practices. Following the FCU, a bill of fare of family-centered interventions is offered to back up effective family management practices and promote the well-being and improved behavior of children and adolescents (Dishion and Kavanagh 2003). Appropriately, the FCU is designed to link intervention services in the schoolhouse and customs. It actively promotes self-choice into the most advisable intervention services on the basis of systematic assessments, available resources, and parents' motivation and skills. Across numerous randomized controlled intervention trials, the FCU has been shown to reduce teacher-reported chance beliefs, arrest rates, substance apply, depression, and antisocial behavior (Connell and Dishion 2008; Connell et al. 2007; Dishion et al. 2003; Stormshak et al. 2005). Interestingly, these outcomes have been mediated by an increase in family management skills, including parental monitoring (Dishion et al. 2003). This model of intervention has also been constructive in early childhood; nosotros have constitute that the FCU is related to reductions in early problem beliefs and increases in positive parenting (Dishion et al. 2008a, b; Lunkenheimer et al. 2008).

Although each of these behavioral outcomes is theoretically linked to academic achievement, we take still to systematically examine the long-term bear upon of the FCU intervention on academic accomplishment and school omnipresence. In this study we examined the bear on of the FCU intervention on both these constructs over time during the transition from eye to loftier school. We hypothesize that our intervention volition have a positive impact on both academic achievement and school attendance into the high school years.

The affect of adaptive interventions is complex to evaluate for a variety of reasons. Near disquisitional is that adaptive interventions endeavour to target individuals nigh in need of the intervention and ignore those who are not. In addition, motivation for engaging in an intervention may non fit well with the assessed need. Common analytic approaches such every bit per-protocol assay, which excludes nonparticipating families, or every bit-treated analysis, which groups individuals by the intervention actually received, disrupt randomization and have dandy potential for bias (Little and Yau 1998). A critical stride in evaluating the impact of an adaptive, tailored intervention is to identify a subset of the randomized control group who resemble those who do actively engage in a voluntary intervention. This group of control families should provide the about accurate flick of how youth receiving the FCU would accept developed without intervention.

Fortunately, recently developed statistical techniques for the analysis of randomized intervention designs, referred to as complier average causal issue analyses (CACE; Imbens and Rubin 1997; Jo 2002; Niggling and Yau 1998), provide a way to systematically analyze treatment compliance equally an alphabetize of engagement. CACE assay was developed to address the problem of intervention noncompliance, which tin exist a major threat to randomized interventions and can lead to biased estimates of intervention effects and limited power to observe significant effects when they do exist (Angrist et al. 1996). There are several ways to use CACE analysis. Recently, it has been integrated into a general framework for person- and variable-centered analyses, in an approach referred to as mixture modeling, using Mplus statistical software (Muthén 2004; Muthén and Muthén 2008). Jo (2002) applied the mixture-modeling framework to place the optimal comparison grouping from the control condition to compare with intervention engagers in the intervention condition. Briefly, this application of mixture modeling permits the modeling of 2 aspects of intervention procedure: the prediction of intervention engagement and examination of the differential outcomes.

In this written report, we used CACE analysis to place predictors of intervention date, and to examine the outcome of engagement with the selected and indicated levels of the Family Check-Upwardly intervention on GPA and school absences from grades 6 through eleven. In general, we predict that families with young adolescents at highest adventure volition exist those most likely to engage in the intervention condition. Amongst those families who participate, we predict that receipt of the family intervention will be significantly associated with lower rates of school absences and higher GPA scores across adolescence.

Methods

Participants

Participants included 998 adolescents and their families, recruited in sixth class from three middle schools in an ethnically various metropolitan community in the Northwest region of the USA. Parents of all 6th class students in 2 cohorts were approached for participation using an active consent protocol, and xc% consented to participate in the school-based cess (encounter Fig. one). The sample included 526 males (52.7%) and 472 females (47.three%). By youth self-written report, the group comprised 423 Caucasians (42.4%), 291 African Americans (29.2%), 68 Latinos (6.8%), 52 Asian Americans (five.2%), and 164 (16.4%) youth of other ethnicities (including biracial). Biological fathers were present in 585 families (58.6%). Youth were randomly assigned at the individual level to either control (498 youth) or intervention (500 youth) groups in the spring of sixth course. Approximately 80% of the youth were retained across the longitudinal span of the current study (wave 2, n=857; wave 3, n=829; wave iv, n=820; moving ridge six, n=794).

Flow of participants through written report

Intervention Protocol

The FCU is part of the EcoFIT multilevel intervention programme (Dishion et al. 2003; Dishion and Kavanagh 2003; Dishion and Stormshak 2007). The first level of the program, the universal intervention, was the development of a family resource center (FRC) in each of the three participating public middle schools. The parent-centered FRC services were available for the entire intervention group and included brief in-person consultations with parents, phone consultations, feedback to parents about their educatee'southward behavior at school, and access to videotapes and books. The FRC services were designed to support positive parenting practices and to engage parents of loftier-hazard youth for the selected intervention.

The selected intervention was the FCU, a cursory, three-session intervention based on motivational interviewing and modeled on the Drinker'south Check-Up (Miller and Rollnick 1991, 2002). Although all families could receive the FCU, families of youth at high risk, identified past teacher ratings, were specifically offered the FCU in seventh and 8th grades. The first session is an initial interview during which the therapist explores parent concerns and stage of alter and motivates involvement in a family unit assessment. The 2d session is primarily an assessment process during which the family unit engages in a variety of assessment tasks and an in-habitation videotaped assessment of a parent–child interaction. The third session involves a strengths-based feedback session during which the therapist systematically summarizes the results of the assessment by using motivational interviewing strategies. An essential objective of the feedback session is to explore potential intervention services that support family unit management practices (come across Dishion and Stormshak 2007).

An outcome of the FCU was a collaborative decision made betwixt the parent and parent consultant regarding the indicated services most appropriate for the family. Services included empirically validated interventions such as a behaviorally oriented parent grouping intervention (Dishion and Andrews 1995; Forgatch and DeGarmo 1999), individually based behavior family therapy (Patterson 1975; Patterson et al. 1975), and multisystemic family therapy (Henggeler et al. 1998). Students who left the targeted schools were offered services if they remained in the county. When the students moved on to loftier school, FRC services were discontinued.

Services were delivered by parent consultants, including two chief's-level therapists and one with a available of science caste. Parent consultant ethnicity closely matched that of the participating families. Parent consultants were trained using a combination of strategies, including didactic instruction, part playing, and videotaped supervision throughout the 2 years of intervention activity.

In the intervention status, 115 families (23%) elected to receive the FCU, and 88 of these families received further intervention services afterwards the FCU. For Cohort 1, 46% of FCUs were completed post-obit the seventh class family unit assessment, 53% were completed following the eighth grade family assessment, and ane% was completed following the ninth grade family assessment. For cohort 2, 93% of FCUs were completed following the seventh class family assessment, and 7% were completed post-obit the eighth grade family cess. Families who received the FCU had an average of eight.nine h of direct contact with the intervention staff during the grade of the report (SD=9.42 h). Contrary to expectations, most families elected to receive brief consultations and periodic FCU meetings rather than more intensive forms of intervention.

Assessment Procedures

In the spring semester, from the 6th through 9th grades, and again in the 11th grade, student surveys were conducted using an instrument developed and reported by colleagues at the Oregon Research Institute (Metzler et al. 2001). Assessments were conducted primarily in the schools. If students moved out of their original schools, they were followed up at their new location. Each youth was paid $20 for completing each assessment.

Measures

Yearly Grade Point Average

Bookish records were gathered from schools every year from 6th through 11th grade. When participating youth moved to a new school during the study, records were sought from those schools as well. Our study focused on cumulative GPA for each yr, on a scale ranging from 0 to 4, with higher scores reflecting better grades (F=0, D=1, C=2, B=3, A=four). When possible, cumulative GPA for the entire academic year was provided by the school district and reflected the average form across the kid's academic courses. When youth attended multiple schools during the bookish yr, the cumulative GPA was calculated every bit the boilerplate of the available GPAs, weighted past the proportion of the schoolhouse year they represented. If youth dropped out of school during the course of the report, their subsequent GPAs were coded as missing. Because of a change in the schoolhouse commune's record-keeping organization, cohort 2 GPA data for 11th grade just were not available and were treated as missing.

Yearly School Absences

The total number of absences during each bookish twelvemonth was provided past the school district when possible. When youth attended multiple schools during the schoolhouse year, records of absences for the function of the school year attended at each school were provided by the school districts, and the number of absences was summed across schools. If youth dropped out of school during the form of the written report, their subsequent school absences were coded equally missing.

Father Presence

Youth reports of biological male parent presence in their master residence in sixth grade were coded as 0 = "biological father not nowadays" and 1 = "biological father present."

Teacher Study of Sixth Form Risk Beliefs

This measure was revised from an earlier version of a mensurate developed by Soberman (1994). Teachers were asked to employ a xvi-item questionnaire to charge per unit their total roster of 6th course students on a variety of risk behaviors associated with problem beliefs in adolescence. The frequency with which youth engaged in a diverseness of trouble behaviors was reported using a v-bespeak calibration ranging from 1 (never/well-nigh never) to 5 (always/almost always). Items included aggression, oppositional behavior, peer relationship bug, disliking school, and moodiness. The sample mean=1.85 (SD = .85). Loftier internal consistency reliability was found for this scale (alpha reliability=0.95). This variable was mean centered for apply in analyses.

Substance Apply in Sixth Class

Youth reports about the frequency with which they had used alcohol or tobacco in the previous month was assessed in sixth form. These items were summed for employ in the electric current analyses.

Antisocial Beliefs in Sixth Grade

Youth reports of appointment in problem behavior were measured averaging beyond six items. Items assessed the number of times in the by month teens reported having engaged in the following behaviors: (a) lying to parents, (b) skipping school, (c) staying out all nighttime without permission, (d) stealing, (eastward) panhandling, and (f) carrying a weapon. Responses were given on a 6-indicate calibration, ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (more than twenty times). Good internal reliability was found for this calibration across assessments (alpha reliability ranged from 0.63 to 0.74 across years).

Deviant Peer Involvement in Sixth Grade

Youth reports of deviant peer involvement in sixth class were measured averaging across 4 items. Items assessed children's reports of the number of times in the by week they had spent time with peers who (a) get into problem, (b) fight a lot, (c) take things that don't belong to them, and (d) fume cigarettes or chew tobacco. Responses ranged from 0 (never) to 7 (more than than seven times). The sample mean=0.76 (SD=i.xi). Good internal reliability was establish for this scale (alpha reliability=0.79). Deviant peer interest was mean centered for use in all analyses.

Family Conflict in Sixth Course

Youth reports of family unit conflict in sixth course were measured averaging across v items. Items reflected the frequency with which family members engaged in a diverseness of conflict behaviors during the past month (e.g., "got angry with each other," "argued at the dinner tabular array"). Responses ranged from 0 (never) to 7 (more than than seven times). The sample mean=0.91 (SD=i.03). Skillful internal reliability was establish for this scale (alpha reliability=0.81). This variable was mean centered for use in analyses.

Intervention Status

Random consignment was coded every bit 0 = "command" and 1 = "intervention."

Engagement Condition

Engagement status was coded to reverberate family participation in the FCU (and further intervention services every bit warranted). Families in the intervention condition who elected to receive the FCU were coded 1 (northward=115), and families in the intervention condition who did not receive the FCU were coded 0 (northward=385). In the control condition, engagement condition was coded as missing data.

Analytic Strategy

We used Mplus 5.one to carry CACE analyses as mixture models and used total information maximum likelihood interpretation to account for missing data (Muthén and Muthén 2008), and then that the N for all CACE models was 998. As described in detail by Jo (2002), CACE analysis is predicated on several assumptions that are necessary for CACE to provide an unbiased guess of the intervention effect for compliers. These assumptions are (a) assignment to intervention is random; (b) potential outcomes for each participant are independent of the outcomes for other participants; (c) for noncompliers in either the intervention or control condition (i.east., never-takers or e'er-takers), the distribution of potential outcomes is contained of the intervention assignment; (d) in that location are no "defiers," or individuals who will e'er exercise the contrary of instructions regardless of the didactics; and (e) the average causal effect of assignment to intervention on the actual receipt of services is not zip. The 3rd supposition, known as the exclusion restriction, is typically the virtually questionable (Jo 2002), and nosotros are confident of meeting the other 4 conditions. Violations of this assumption may lead to biased CACE estimates of intervention effects, particularly in the face of low appointment rates (Jo 2002). Even so, the potential effects of bias resulting from violations of the exclusion restriction can be ameliorated by the apply of covariates to yield more precise estimates of engagement status. In the presence of significant predictors of appointment with intervention, analytic results provide unbiased estimates of the true CACE effect (for details see Jo 2002).

To examine the issue of adding covariates on the CACE estimate of the intervention event, a series of analyses was conducted for each of the youth outcomes. Showtime, a CACE model was examined that included only intervention assignment as a predictor. Intervention consignment was allowed to predict only the slope of problem behavior in the compliers course, but not the gradient in the nonengagers class, the intercept in any class, or class membership. 2nd, this model was extended to include covariates, which were allowed to predict intercept and slope in both classes, along with class membership. Because there were no substantial differences in the magnitude of the CACE estimates of intervention furnishings across the above-described models for either outcome variable, we nowadays here only the findings from the 2nd model. Details of the full serial of models are available upon request. In all models, engagement status was used as a training variable for class membership determination, which was known in the intervention group but missing in the command grouping. The intercept growth parameter represents the initial level of GPA or school absences in sixth course. The concluding model is shown in Fig. 2.

CACE model with covariates and categorical outcomes

Note: Dashed lines indicate that result of intervention on growth parameter is 0 if c=0

Results

Descriptive Analyses

Descriptive statistics for GPA and school absences from grades 6 through 11 are shown in Table i, and correlations between variables are presented in Table 2. As expected, during the transition to high school there is a general turn down in GPA and increase in absence rate. Both GPA and absenteeism rate are correlated in the expected direction with the predictors in Tabular array 2.

Tabular array 1

Descriptive statistics for GPA and school absences

		sixth form	7th grade	8th grade	9th grade	10th form	11th form
Command	GPA	2.65	ii.48	2.59	2.xvi	two.19	two.38
	Mean (SD)	(0.89)	(1.00)	(one.00)	(1.12)	(1.07)	(1.04)
	Absences	13.14	13.52	thirteen.82	12.89	14.68	fourteen.fourteen
	Hateful (SD)	(11.96)	(11.90)	(12.78)	(13.x)	(14.74)	(16.69)
Intervention nonengagers	GPA	2.79	ii.64	2.62	two.86	2.35	2.45
	Mean (SD)	(0.xc)	(ane.00)	(1.18)	(1.05)	(ane.xviii)	(ane.18)
	Absences	11.61	12.61	xiii.22	12.52	xiv.59	12.72
	Mean (SD)	(11.41)	(eleven.93)	(13.24)	(15.57)	(16.48)	(13.32)
Intervention engagers	GPA	two.56	2.33	2.42	ane.97	2.15	2.32
	Hateful (SD)	(0.80)	(0.91)	(one.00)	(1.08)	(ane.06)	(1.09)
	Absences	12.64	13.93	xiii.09	13.46	15.nine	13.89
	Mean (SD)	(10.13)	(11.62)	(12.63)	(13.03)	(17.43)	(xvi.57)

Table ii

Correlations between predictors and GPA or schoolhouse absences

	6th course GPA	7th course GPA	8th grade GPA	ninth grade GPA	10th grade GPA	11th course GPA
Intervention consignment	0.05	0.04	−0.01	0.02	0.05	0.02
Child gender	0.19*	0.22*	0.17*	0.13*	0.12*	0.15*
Ethnicity	−0.32*	−0.27*	−0.28*	−0.31*	−0.28*	−0.21*
Family disharmonize	−0.24*	−0.20*	−0.xx*	−0.18*	−0.12*	−0.11*
Deviant peers	−0.xxx*	−0.28*	−0.24*	−0.21*	−0.18*	−0.12*
Teacher risk	−0.threescore*	−0.53*	−0.fifty*	−0.42*	−0.42*	−0.31*
Biological father presence	0.26*	0.21*	0.20*	0.19*	0.22*	0.nineteen*
Antisocial behavior	−0.37*	−0.33*	−0.33*	−0.26*	−0.25*	−0.17*
Substance use	−0.18*	−0.18*	−0.15*	−0.14*	−0.11*	−0.08
	6th grade absences	seventh grade absences	8th form absences	9th grade absences	10th grade absences	11th grade absences
Intervention consignment	−0.05	−0.02	−0.03	−0.01	0.01	−0.04
Child gender	−0.01	0.02	0.00	0.02	0.08*	0.02
Ethnicity	0.fourteen*	0.12*	0.14*	0.12*	0.15*	0.09*
Family conflict	0.14*	0.11*	0.10*	0.12*	0.13*	0.09*
Deviant peers	0.23*	0.27*	0.xvi*	0.14*	0.13*	0.05
Teacher risk	0.28*	0.29*	0.17*	0.16*	0.15*	0.05
Biological male parent presence	−0.19*	−0.xiv*	−0.19*	−0.12*	−0.18*	−0.09*
Antisocial behavior	0.24*	0.24*	0.20*	0.18*	0.sixteen*	0.05
Substance utilize	0.16*	0.xviii*	0.12*	0.xiii*	0.xiv*	0.03

Preliminary analyses focused on discriminating the families within the intervention grouping who engaged in the FCU from those who did not (engagers versus nonengagers). As shown in Table 3, observed appointment with intervention in the intervention condition was significantly related to the likelihood of biological fathers beingness absent from the domicile, youth reports of elevated family disharmonize and deviant peer amalgamation, and teacher reports of elevated risk behaviors at school. The analysis of covariates of date suggests that those parents nigh likely to engage in the FCU were the most vulnerable and experiencing the well-nigh difficulty.

Table three

Comparison of engager and nonengager families, for families randomly assigned to the intervention status

	Nonengagers (north=385)	Compliers (n=115)	Jitney test
Female gender (%)	44.9	51.3	χ2 (df=one)=ane.44, ns
Ethnic minority status (%)	55.vi	62.half-dozen	χii (df=1)=one.78, ns
Biological dad nowadays (%)	60	forty	χii (df=one) = 14.72, p<0.05
6th course parental monitoring (M, SD)	iii.97 (.98)	3.97 (one.06)	F(1,489)=0.00, due north.s.
6th class deviant peers (One thousand, SD)	0.84 (.94)	1.25 (1.28)	F(1,488) = 13.81, p<0.05
sixth course substance utilise (M, SD)	0.00 (.88)	0.16 (i.06)	F(1,488)=2.71, north.due south.
6th grade family disharmonize (One thousand, SD)	0.66 (1.05)	1.01 (1.26)	F(1,489)=9.05, p<0.05
6th grade antisocial beliefs (M, SD)	1.41 (.65)	1.51 (.56)	F(1,489)=1.96, due north.s.
sixth grade instructor report of take a chance (K, SD)	1.79 (.85)	2.13 (.91)	F(one,498) = 14.17, p<0.05

Unconditional latent growth models were examined for both GPA and school absences to determine the parameters needed to fairly describe change trajectories. For both GPA and schoolhouse absences, models with intercept, slope, and quadratic slope parameters provided practiced fit to the data. The unconditional GPA model yielded significant intercept (estimate=2.80, SE=0.04) and gradient (estimate=–0.10, SE=0.02) parameters and a nonsignificant quadratic slope parameter (estimate=0.003, SE=0.004). Significant residue variation in all iii parameters was institute (intercept estimate=0.65, SE=0.06; gradient approximate=0.06, SE=0.02; quadratic gradient estimate=0.003, SE=0.001), indicating pregnant variability that could be related to covariates in subsequent models.

The unconditional schoolhouse absence model yielded a meaning intercept (guess=12.59, SE=0.38) parameter but nonsignificant slope (estimate=0.51, SE=0.33) and quadratic slope (estimate=–0.05, SE=0.06) parameters. Significant rest variation in all three parameters was found (intercept estimate=84.99, SE=eight.72; slope estimate= 43.46, SE=five.87; quadratic slope estimate=i.92, SE=0.24), indicating significant variability that could exist related to covariates in subsequent models.

CACE Model Results

Considering CACE analysis is a mixture model, typical estimates of model fit such as the chi-foursquare test are not available. One index of the quality of classification of the trajectory groups inside the model is represented past entropy, which is a summary mensurate of the probability of membership in the nearly-probable form for each individual (i.e., in the engager or nonengager class). Possible values range from 0 to 1.0, with values closer to ane.0 representing better classification (Muthén and Muthén 2008). Nagin (2005) has recommended a cutoff value of .70 as indicative of acceptable entropy. In the electric current analyses, entropy was good (entropy=0.92). Results for predictors of engagement status are shown in Table four, and the results for inside-grade variation in GPA and school absence trajectories are shown in Tables five and ​ 6, respectively.

Table 4

Final CACE model results for the prediction of compliance class membership

	Form membership Engager vs. nonengager Logit (SE)
Intervention status	Fixed at 0
Gender	−0.28 (.21)
Ethnicity: European American	0.11 (.30)
Ethnicity: African American	0.00 (.32)
Ethnicity: Hispanic	0.42 (.51)
Biological dad present (sixth grade)	0.70 (0.21)*
Parental monitoring (6th class)	−0.10 (0.13)
Deviant peers (6th grade)	−0.fourteen (0.10)
Substance use (6th grade)	0.00 (0.03)
Family unit conflict (6th grade)	−0.20 (0.09)*
Teacher study of risk (sixth course)	−0.28 (0.13)*
Antisocial beliefs (6th grade)	−0.04 (0.23)
Parameter threshold	2.11 (0.47)*

Tabular array five

Final CACE model results for course indicate averages

	Within-course variation
	Nonengager class			Engager class
	InterceptEst. (SE)	SlopeEst. (SE)	Slope2Est. (SE)	InterceptEst. (SE)	SlopeEst. (SE)	Slope2Est. (SE)
Intervention status	Fixed at 0	Fixed at 0	Fixed at 0	Fixed at 0	−.xxx (.xiv)*	.12 (.03)*
Gender	0.10 (0.05)*	−0.01 (0.04)	0.00 (0.01)	0.24 (0.thirteen)	−0.05 (0.09)	0.02 (0.02)
Ethnicity: European American	0.08 (0.06)	−0.03 (0.05)	0.00 (0.01)	0.fourteen (0.17)	−0.06 (0.12)	0.02 (0.03)
Ethnicity: African American	−0.32 (0.07)*	0.00 (0.06)	0.01 (0.01)	0.01 (0.17)	0.07 (0.eleven)	−0.02 (0.03)
Ethnicity: Hispanic	−0.43 (0.10)*	−0.04 (0.10)	0.01 (0.02)	−0.38 (0.37)	0.48 (0.28)	−0.12 (0.06)*
Biological dad present (sixth grade)	0.19 (0.05)*	−0.03 (0.05)	0.01 (0.01)	0.23 (0.fourteen)	−0.14 (0.10)	0.02 (0.02)
Parental monitoring (6th grade)	0.xiv (0.03)*	−0.04 (0.03)	0.01 (0.01)	0.17 (0.06)*	0.06 (0.05)	−0.01 (0.01)
Deviant peers (6th form)	−0.01 (0.03)	−0.01 (0.03)	0.00 (0.01)	−0.07 (0.07)	0.05 (0.05)	−0.01 (0.01)
Substance utilize (6th grade)	−0.01 (0.01)	−0.01 (0.01)	0.00 (0.00)	0.02 (0.02)	0.01 (0.02)	0.00 (0.00)
Family unit conflict (6th grade)	−0.06 (0.03)*	0.03 (0.03)	−0.01 (0.01)	−0.03 (0.06)	−0.03 (0.05)	0.00 (0.01)
Teacher report of risk (sixth grade)	−0.l (0.03)*	−0.03 (0.03)	0.02 (0.01)*	−0.38 (0.08)*	−0.03 (0.06)	0.01 (0.01)
Hating behavior (6th grade)	−0.04 (0.06)	−0.04 (0.07)	0.01 (0.01)	0.03 (0.12)	−0.03 (0.12)	0.01 (0.03)
Parameter intercept	three.67 (0.12)*	−0.12 (0.xi)	−0.03 (0.02)	2.95 (0.24)*	0.25 (0.24)	−0.14 (0.05)*
Parameter residue variance	0.32 (0.03)*	0.09 (0.02)*	0.003 (0.001)*	0.32 (0.03)*	0.09 (0.02)*	0.003 (0.001)*

Table 6

Final CACE model results for school absences

	Within-class variation
	Nonengager form			Engager class
	InterceptEst. (SE)	SlopeEst. (SE)	Slope2Est. (SE)	InterceptEst. (SE)	SlopeEst. (SE)	GradientiiEst. (SE)
Intervention status	Fixed at 0	Stock-still at 0	Fixed at 0	Fixed at 0	8.26 (i.70)*	−3.36 (.49)*
Gender	one.ten (0.77)	0.33 (0.72)	−0.07 (0.15)	two.54 (two.21)	0.69 (1.51)	−0.38 (0.33)
Ethnicity: European American	1.07 (0.91)	−1.76 (1.02)	0.27 (0.xx)	0.55 (iii.72)	0.53 (2.28)	−0.29 (0.38)
Ethnicity: African American	ii.17 (0.131)	−1.76 (1.27)	0.21 (0.24)	−1.84 (iv.01)	−0.51 (2.49)	0.30 (0.38)
Ethnicity: Hispanic	iii.77 (one.93)	−0.65 (2.38)	0.nineteen (0.45)	0.84 (four.69)	−v.06 (3.fourteen)	ane.53 (0.66)*
Biological dad present (6th grade)	−1.96 (0.89)*	−1.09 (0.83)	0.20 (0.16)	−4.48 (2.73)	1.31 (ane.62)	−0.10 (0.33)
Parental monitoring (6th class)	−0.85 (0.51)*	0.67 (0.48)	−0.thirteen (0.ten)	0.23 (one.18)	−0.19 (0.64)	0.06 (0.12)
Deviant peers (6th grade)	0.36 (0.63)	0.41 (0.63)	−0.11 (0.12)	2.77 (2.05)	−ane.12 (0.94)	0.ten (0.14)
Substance apply (6th grade)	0.32 (0.twenty)	−0.eleven (0.22)	0.01 (0.04)	−0.20 (0.35)	0.42 (0.23)	−0.04 (0.05)
Family disharmonize (6th grade)	0.58 (0.56)	−0.17 (0.55)	0.06 (0.xi)	−2.48 (1.61)	i.20 (0.81)	−0.15 (0.fifteen)
Teacher report of risk (sixth grade)	three.12 (.75)*	−.25 (.73)	−.05 (.fourteen)	two.63 (1.57)*	−.83 (1.16)	.05 (.21)
Antisocial behavior (sixth grade)	0.26 (1.45)	1.55 (one.30)	−0.41 (0.24)	0.61 (ii.60)	0.33 (2.15)	−0.24 (0.42)
Parameter intercept	iv.83 (2.11)*	one.58 (ii.35)	0.06 (0.46)	11.25 (5.86)*	−9.45 (4.56)*	three.99 (.87)*
Parameter residual variance	58.40 (10.86)*	30.91 (viii.19)*	1.13 (.31)*	58.40 (10.86)*	thirty.91 (eight.19)*	1.13 (.31)*

Predictors of Engagement

Results for predictors of engagement followed a logistic regression framework, and the extent to which variables discriminate membership in the engager versus nonengager classes was examined. Engagement was predicted by greater likelihood of biological begetter absenteeism from the youth's home, more frequent family disharmonize, and elevated teacher reports of risk in 6th grade.

Predictors of Inside-Class Variation

It is particularly important to annotation that random assignment to the intervention condition was predictive of the level of change in both GPA and school absences. The effects of the intervention on grades and absences for families divers equally engagers are presented in Figs. 3 and ​ 4. Equally shown, within the engager class, family participation in the FCU reduced growth in school absences as well as declines in GPA from 6th through 11th grade.

CACE results of intervention effect on changes in GPA

CACE results of intervention event on changes in schoolhouse absences

Additional results are of import to highlight for each domain of academic functioning. For GPA, sixth class GPA in the nonengager class was positively related to male person gender, the presence of biological fathers in the home (i.due east., youth residing with biological fathers had college initial GPAs), and to parental monitoring efforts. Conversely, sixth class GPA was negatively related to African American or Hispanic ethnicity, elevated family conflict, and teacher perceptions of date in risky behavior. 6th grade GPA in the engager class was negatively related only to teachers' perceptions of school-take chances beliefs. In the engager class, the quadratic slope for GPA was negatively related to Hispanic ethnicity (i.e., Hispanic youth showed greater declines in GPAs over time, relative to non-Hispanic youth).

For school absences, sixth form absences in the nonengager course were negatively related to the presence of biological fathers in the home and to parental monitoring, and were positively related to teachers' reports of school run a risk in sixth class. In the engager class, 6th grade school absences were positively related only to teachers' reports of risk behavior, and the quadratic slope was positively related to Hispanic ethnicity (i.due east., Hispanic youth showed greater acceleration in the number of school absences over time, relative to not-Hispanic youth).

Follow-up analyses examined the potential for high-influence cases to impact the analytic results by inspecting the log-likelihood distance influence measure for each case (Cook and Weisberg 1982). Although there are no fixed cutoff values for determining high-influence cases, we identified 5 cases whose influence values were clearly outliers with respect to the distribution of log-likelihood distance values. Analyses were rerun with these cases removed from these data sets, and results were nearly identical.

Give-and-take

This study focused on the long-term academic outcomes associated with the FCU intervention model that included a comprehensive family cess, back up for family management skills, and interventions targeted at helping parents reduce youth high-hazard behavior. Nosotros found that over time, our family-centered, school-based arroyo to intervention had a positive impact on both academic achievement and attendance in school. In particular, youth whose families received our intervention showed a GPA that remained stable from middle schoolhouse to high schoolhouse. GPA for youth in our loftier-take a chance control group declined substantially during the transition to high school and into the loftier school years. Similarly, the high-risk command group showed a substantial growth in absence rate from heart school to high school, whereas in our intervention group an acceleration in absenteeism rate was prevented.

These results have important implications for the delivery of parenting interventions to at-risk and high-risk youth. Ample research supports the implementation of parenting skills interventions across early, center, and tardily childhood as a means to reduce trouble beliefs and enhance family management skills (Kazdin 2003). Parenting programs that focus on enhancing the skills of parents every bit a means to reduce child problem beliefs are the most successful empirically based interventions for youth and families (Weiss et al. 1995). Parenting skills training can exist administered equally an individual-level intervention, a grouping intervention, or a school-based intervention. Evidence in the literature supports each of these approaches to service delivery. Our results suggest that family unit-centered interventions can accept an impact non merely on problem behaviors at dwelling, but besides on school behaviors such as attendance and academic achievement. Equally schools are faced with increasing rates of mental health problems and limited resources, the infusion of family unit-centered approaches to mental health problems may be the most effective style to reduce problem behavior and increase school appointment.

In each model tested, we entered predictors of engagement to examine the risk factors associated with participation in intervention. Consistent with our other published findings from this torso of research (Connell et al. 2007; Stormshak et al. 2005), nosotros found that families who engaged virtually regularly in our intervention were those with a number of adventure factors, including single parenting, elevated family unit conflict, and elevated number of teacher ratings of risk. Given our adaptive arroyo to intervention, this finding is important considering it suggests that our model did motivate and target the at-hazard and loftier-chance portion of our sample.

Interestingly, we did not notice that ethnicity predicted date in intervention. These findings are besides significant because they suggest that our intervention did successfully appoint diverse families into the intervention program. Providing interventions that are culturally competent is significant to maintaining date of diverse families (Hudley and Taylor 2006). This is particularly critical when working with parenting and family unit direction skills, which are tightly linked to family unit values, communities, and culture (Yasui and Dishion 2007). Our EcoFIT arroyo to intervention is tailored to individual family unit strengths, areas of growth, and parenting values and allows adaptation of content to meet the needs of diverse families (Dishion and Stormshak 2007).

Previous family-centered intervention research has made little effort to examine academic outcomes, particularly those in the adolescent years. At that place are a diversity of reasons for this lack of findings, including that longitudinal academic information are time consuming and expensive to collect. In calorie-free of these challenges, many parenting programs have focused their resources on measuring proximal outcomes such equally improved parenting over more distal outcomes such as bookish accomplishment. Intervention programs that have included academic tutoring or other academic support forth with parent skills preparation have reported significant results (e.yard., Leve and Chamberlain 2005; Tolan et al. 2004). Outcomes associated with unlike intervention components cannot be tested in a multifaceted intervention model, and in this literature these circumstances accept limited our power to understand the impact of parenting interventions on schoolhouse date. Because we did not provide additional academic tutoring or other interventions to back up academic engagement, our results suggest that a family-centered intervention focused on improving parenting skills can accept a positive impact on academic outcomes.

Engaging Families in Family unit-Centered Interventions

Engaging high-run a risk youth and their families in an intervention directed at changing parenting skills and family direction tin be a challenging endeavour. In this project, we successfully engaged 25% of our intervention group in the FCU intervention, which is a selected intervention for at-risk and loftier-take chances families. Although a low charge per unit of participation is expected when the goal is to provide intervention to at-risk and high-take chances families, our tailored arroyo to intervention enhanced the rates. For many families, considerations such equally childcare, work schedules, and the time commitment required to attend parenting groups tin reduce or prohibit participation, and although some parenting programs offer monetary compensation, food, and childcare to parents, amenities such equally these are costly for schools or customs agencies. In addition, parents' own interpersonal problems such as low, substance use, and limited resources can affect intervention participation and outcomes (Smith et al. 2005; Webster-Stratton and Hammond 1990). Recruitment and attendance concerns such as these accept led to the development of brief parenting interventions (Lim et al. 2005; Stormshak et al. 2002) and tailored, individualized family unit interventions (Dishion and Stormshak 2007).

School-Based Mental Wellness

The provision of health and mental health services in schools has been increasing during the past 20 years, and a meaning amount of literature now exists about a range of school-based mental health programs. Unfortunately virtually of the programs focus exclusively on youth and neglect the contribution of the family to mental health problems, and they overlook empirically based interventions (Shirk and Jungbluth 2008). Furthermore, school conditions, support from school staff, and teachers' skill level all touch the quality and implementation of mental health programs in schools (Atkins et al. 2008; Hughes et al. 2005; Payne et al. 2006). In light of these challenges, schoolhouse-based mental health research supports the implementation of tailored, empirically based family unit interventions in schools to efficiently address the mental wellness needs of at-risk youth.

Limitations and Future Directions

In this written report, nosotros assume that the underlying mechanism for modify was the bear upon our intervention had on parenting strategies such as homework monitoring, implementing skills to convalesce family conflict, and positive parenting. Ane limitation of this report was insufficient opportunity to straight examination this mediational model; withal, we have plant in previous research that our intervention improves positive parenting strategies (Dishion et al. 2003). We were besides limited in our ability to run split up models by race and gender and to test the intervention separately across these groups. In addition, some of the risk indices are not platonic. Virtually of import, more sensitive measures of family unit configuration were not collected, and the "paternal presence" variable used in this written report is not a clear indicator of the role of fathers in the lives of these youth. Given that this family unit configuration variable emerges as an important predictor of family engagement in treatment, it is of import for future studies to examine with more sensitivity the role of family configuration in the treatment date process. The "family conflict" variable is also wide and is limited by having used only youth cocky-report equally a measure. Future studies could differentiate between interparental conflict and conflict betwixt parents and youth.

Finally, information technology is regrettable that a change in the commune'due south tape keeping precluded the collection of 11th class GPA for the second cohort of youth in this study. Our conviction in the intervention effects on GPA is buttressed past the fact that (a) differences in the 2 cohorts were not found at earlier waves of information collection, and (b) schoolhouse absence data were not affected by the changes in record keeping, all the same also revealed intervention effects in the expected direction.

These findings are quite relevant for policy decisions regarding the potential viability of delivering mental health services in the public school context, especially when those services are family unit centered, cursory, and focused on empowering parents to promote academic success. Clearly, mental health services in public school settings that constitute collaborative linkages between parents and teachers volition exist enhanced by school structural changes and improved advice systems and technology (due east.g., Internet), which will ultimately optimize success for both children and their families for generations to come.

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by grants DA07031 and DA13773 from the National Plant on Drug Abuse and DA018760 from the National Institutes of Wellness to the third writer, and DA018374 to the first author. We acknowledge the contribution of the Project Alliance staff, Portland Public Schools, and the participating youth and families. Nosotros wish to thank Booil Jo, Ph.D., for consultation and insights on the analysis of intervention engagement.

Contributor Information

Elizabeth A. Stormshak, Counseling Psychology Program, Child and Family Center, Academy of Oregon, 195 Westward 12th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401-3408, U.s.a..

Arin Connell, Psychology, Case Western Reserve Academy, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Thomas J. Dishion, Psychology and School Psychology, Child and Family unit Center, Academy of Oregon, 195 West 12th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401-3408, USA.

References

• Angrist J, Imbens G, Rubin D. Identification of causal furnishings using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1996;91:444–455. doi: 10.2307/2291629. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Atkins MS, Frazier SL, Leathers SJ, Graczyk PA, Talbott Due east, Jakobsons Fifty, et al. Instructor key opinion leaders and mental wellness consultation in low-income urban schools. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2008;76:905–908. doi: 10.1037/a0013036. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• August GJ, Realmuto GM, Hektner JM, Bloomquist ML. An integrated components preventive intervention for ambitious elementary schoolhouse children: The Early Risers plan. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2001;69:614–626. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.69.four.614. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bronfenbrenner U. Ecological systems theory. In: Vasta R, editor. Annals of kid development: Vol six Six theories of kid development: Revised formulations and current issues. London: JAI; 1989. pp. 187–249. [Google Scholar]
• Brown BB. The role of peer groups in adolescents' adjustment to secondary schoolhouse. In: Berndt TJ, Ladd GW, editors. Peer relationships in kid development. Oxford; England: Wiley: 1989. pp. 188–215. [Google Scholar]
• Cicchetti D, Toth SL. The part of developmental theory in prevention and intervention. Development and Psychopathology. 1992;4:489–493. doi: 10.1017/S0954579400004831. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Coie JD, Watt NF, W M, Hawkins JD, Asarnow JR, Markman HJ, et al. The science of prevention: A conceptual framework and some directions for a national research programme. The American Psychologist. 1993;48:1013–1022. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.10.1013. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Conduct Issues Prevention Enquiry Group. Evaluation of the first iii years of the Fast Track prevention trial with children at high gamble for adolescent conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2002;thirty:xix–35. doi: 10.1023/A:1014274914287. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Connell A, Dishion TJ. Reducing depression among at-risk early adolescents: Three-twelvemonth effects of a family-centered intervention embedded within schools. Journal of Family Psychology. 2008;22:574–585. doi: x.1037/0893-3200.22.3.574. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Connell A, Dishion TJ, Yasui One thousand, Kavanagh K. An adaptive approach to family intervention: Linking engagement in family-centered intervention to reductions in adolescent problem beliefs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2007;75:568–579. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Melt R, Weisberg Due south. Residuals and influence in regression. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1982. [Google Scholar]
• Dishion TJ, Andrews D. Preventing escalations in problem behaviors with high-gamble young adolescents: Immediate and 1-twelvemonth outcomes. Periodical of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1995;63:538–548. doi: ten.1037/0022-006X.63.4.538. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Dishion TJ, Kavanagh Grand. Intervening in boyish trouble behavior: A family-centered arroyo. New York: Guilford; 2003. [Google Scholar]
• Dishion TJ, Loeber R. Adolescent marijuana and alcohol use: The part of parents and peers revisited. The American Journal of Drug and Booze Abuse. 1985;11:eleven–25. doi: 10.3109/00952998509016846. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Dishion TJ, McMahon RJ. Parental monitoring and the prevention of problem beliefs: A conceptual and empirical reformulation. Research meeting on drug abuse prevention through family interventions. In: Ashery RS, editor. NIDA research monograph. Vol. 177. Washington, DC: Government Printing Part; 1998. [Google Scholar]
• Dishion TJ, Stormshak E. Intervening in children's lives: An ecological, family-centered approach to mental wellness intendance. Washington, DC: APA Books; 2007. [Google Scholar]
• Dishion TJ, Nelson SE, Kavanagh K. The Family Check-Up for high-risk adolescents: Preventing early on-onset substance use by parent monitoring. In: Lochman JE, Salekin R, editors. Beliefs Therapy. Vol. 34. 2003. pp. 553–571. Behavior-oriented interventions for children with aggressive beliefs and/or conduct problems [Special Issue] [Google Scholar]
• Dishion TJ, Nelson SN, Bullock BM. Premature adolescent autonomy: Parent detachment and deviant peer procedure in the amplification of trouble behavior. In: Kiesner J, Kerr M, editors. Journal on Adolescence. Vol. 27. 2004. pp. 515–530. Peer and family unit processes in the development of hating and aggressive behavior [Special Issue] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Dishion TJ, Bullock BM, Kiesner J. Vicissitudes of parenting adolescents: Daily variations in parental monitoring and the early emergence of drug use. In: Kerr M, Stattin H, Engels RCME, editors. What can parents do? New insights into the role of parents in adolescent problem behavior. Chichester, England: Wiley; 2008a. pp. 113–133. [Google Scholar]
• Dishion TJ, Shaw DS, Connell AM, Gardner F, Weaver CM, Wilson MN. The Family Check-Up with high-risk indigent families: Preventing problem beliefs past increasing parents' positive behavior support in early on childhood. Child Evolution. 2008b;79:1395–1414. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01195.x. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Eccles JS, Midgley C, Wigfield A, Buchanan CM, Reuman D, Flanagan C, et al. Development during adolescence: The impact of phase–fit on adolescents' in schools and families. The American Psychologist. 1993;48:90–101. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.ninety. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Eccles JS, Lord SE, Roeser RW. Circular holes, square pegs, rocky roads, and sore feet: The impact of stage–environment fit on young adolescents' experiences in schools and families. In: Cicchetti D, Toth South, editors. Rochester Symposium on Developmental Psychopathology: Adolescence: Opportunities and challenges. Vol. 7. New York: Academy of Rochester Press; 1995. pp. 47–92. [Google Scholar]
• Forgatch MS, DeGarmo DS. Parenting through change: An constructive prevention program for single mothers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1999;67:711–724. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.67.five.711. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Greenwood GE, Hickman CW. Research and practice in parent involvement: Implications for teacher education. The Elementary Schoolhouse Periodical. 1991;91:279–287. doi: x.1086/461655. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hawkins JD. Bookish performance and school success: Sources and consequences. In: Weissberg RP, Gullotta TP, Hampton RL, Ryan BA, Adams GR, editors. Healthy children 2010: Enhancing children's health. M Oaks, CA: Sage; 1997. pp. 278–305. [Google Scholar]
• Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Morrison DM, O'Donnell J, Abbott RD, Day LE. Effects of the first four years on protective factors and problem behaviors. In: McCord J, Tremblay RE, editors. The prevention of antisocial behavior in children. New York: Guilford; 1992. pp. 139–162. [Google Scholar]
• Hawkins JD, Guo J, Hill KG, Battin-Pearson S, Abbott RD. Long-term effects of the Seattle Social Development Intervention on school bonding trajectories. Applied Developmental Scientific discipline. 2001;5:225–236. doi: x.1207/S1532480XADS0504_04. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Henggeler S, Schoenwald S, Borduin C, Rowland Thousand, Cunningham P. Multisystemic treatment of antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. New York: Guilford; 1998. [Google Scholar]
• Hill NE, Castellino DR, Lansford JE, Nowlin P, Dodge KA, Bates JE, Pettit GS. Parent academic interest as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations: Demographic variations beyond boyhood. Child Evolution. 2004;75:1491–1509. doi: x.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00753.x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hudley C, Taylor A. What is cultural competence and how can it exist incorporated into preventive interventions? In: Guerra NG, Smith EP, editors. Preventing youth violence in a multicultural society. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2006. pp. 249–269. [Google Scholar]
• Hughes JN, Cavell TA, Meehan BT, Zhang D, Collie C. Adverse school context moderates the outcomes of selective interventions for aggressive children. Periodical of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2005;73:731–736. doi: x.1037/0022-006X.73.four.731. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Estimating effect distributions for compliers in instrumental variables models. The Review of Economical Studies. 1997;64:555–574. doi: ten.2307/2971731. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Jo B. Statistical power in randomized intervention studies with noncompliance. Psychological Methods. 2002;7:178–193. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.vii.2.178. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kazdin AE. Problem-solving skills training and parent management grooming for acquit disorder. In: Kazdin AE, Weisz JR, editors. Prove-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents. New York: Guilford; 2003. pp. 241–262. [Google Scholar]
• Larson R, Ham M. Stress and "storm and stress" in early on adolescence: The relationship of negative events with dysphoric affect. Developmental Psychology. 1993;29:130–140. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.29.1.130. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Leve LD, Chamberlain P. Association with delinquent peers: Intervention effects for youth in the juvenile justice organisation. Journal of Abnormal Kid Psychology. 2005;33:339–347. doi: 10.1007/s10802-005-3571-7. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lim M, Stormshak EA, Dishion TJ. A one-session intervention for parents of young adolescents: Videotape modeling and motivational group discussion. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2005;13:194–199. doi: 10.1177/10634266050130040101. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Piffling RJ, Yau LHY. Statistical techniques for analyzing information from prevention trials: Treatment of no-shows using Rubin'south causal model. Psychological Methods. 1998;3:147–159. doi: ten.1037/1082-989X.3.2.147. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Loeber R, Dishion T. Early predictors of male person delinquency: A review. Psychological Bulletin. 1983;94:68–99. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.94.i.68. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Loeber R, Wung P, Keenan K, Giroux B, Stouthamer-Loeber M, van Kammen WB, et al. Developmental pathways in disruptive child behavior. Development and Psychopathology. 1993;5:103–133. doi: x.1017/S0954579400004296. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lunkenheimer ES, Dishion TJ, Shaw DS, Connell A, Gardner FM, Wilson MN, et al. Collateral benefits of the Family Check-Up on early childhood school readiness: Indirect effects of parents' positive behavior support. Developmental Psychology. 2008;44:1737–1752. doi: 10.1037/a0013858. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mattingly DJ, Prislin R, McKenzie TL, Rodriguez JL, Kayzar B. Evaluating evaluations: The case of parent involvement programs. Review of Educational Inquiry. 2002;72:549–576. doi: 10.3102/00346543072004549. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• McMahon RJ, Slough N . Carry Problems Prevention Enquiry Group. Family-based intervention in the fast Runway Program. In: Peters RD, McMahon RJ, editors. Preventing childhood disorders, substance corruption, and delinquency. K Oaks, CA: Sage; 1996. pp. 90–110. [Google Scholar]
• Metzler CW, Biglan A, Rusby JC, Sprague JR. Evaluation of a comprehensive behavior direction program to improve school-wide positive beliefs back up. Education & Treatment of Children. 2001;24:448–479. [Google Scholar]
• Miller WR, Rollnick Due south. Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change addictive behavior. New York: Guilford; 1991. [Google Scholar]
• Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change. 2d. New York: Guilford; 2002. [Google Scholar]
• Muthén B. Latent variable analysis: Growth mixture modeling and related techniques for longitudinal information. In: Kaplan D, editor. Handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 2004. pp. 345–368. [Google Scholar]
• Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user'south guide. 5th. Los Angeles, CA: Author; 2008. [Google Scholar]
• Nagin D. Grouping-based modeling of evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
• Patterson GR. A guide for the professional for use with living with children and families. Champaign, IL: Inquiry Press; 1975. [Google Scholar]
• Patterson GR, Dishion TJ. Multilevel family process models: Traits, interactions, and relationships. In: Hinde R, Stevenson-Hinde J, editors. Relationships and families: Mutual influences. Oxford, Uk: Clarendon; 1988. pp. 283–310. [Google Scholar]
• Patterson GR, Stouthamer-Loeber M. The correlation of family unit management practices and malversation. Child Development. 1984;55:1299–1307. doi: 10.2307/1129999. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Patterson G, Reid J, Jones R, Conger R. A social learning approach to family intervention: Families with ambitious children. Eugene, OR: Castalia; 1975. [Google Scholar]
• Patterson GR, DeBaryshe BD, Ramsey E. A developmental perspective on antisocial beliefs. The American Psychologist. 1989;44:329–335. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.329. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Payne AA, Gottfredson DC, Gottfredson GD. School predictors of the intensity of implementation of school-based prevention programs: Results from a national study. Prevention Science. 2006;7:225–237. doi: 10.1007/s11121-006-0029-ii. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Peterson PL, Hawkins JD, Abbott RD, Catalano RF. Disentangling the effects of parental drinking, family unit management, and parent alcohol norms on current drinking by blackness and white adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 1994;4:203–277. doi: ten.1207/s15327795jra0402_3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Pettit GS, Bates JE, Dodge KA. Family interaction patterns and children's carry bug at dwelling house and school: A longitudinal perspective. School Psychology Review. 1993;22:403–420. [Google Scholar]
• Sameroff AJ. Dialectical processes in developmental psychopathology. In: Sameroff A, Lewis J, Miller SM, editors. Handbook of developmental psychopathology. 2nd. New York: Kluwer; 2000. pp. 23–40. [Google Scholar]
• Shirk SR, Jungbluth NJ. Schoolhouse-based mental wellness checkups: Ready for practical action. Clinical Psychology: Scientific discipline and Practise. 2008;5:217–223. doi: ten.1111/j.1468-2850.2008.00131.ten. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Smith KE, Landry SH, Swank PR. The influence of decreased parental resources on the efficacy of a responsive parenting intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2005;73:711–720. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.4.711. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Soberman LT. Psychometric validation of a cursory teacher screening instrument. Eugene: University of Oregon; 1994. [Google Scholar]
• Spoth R, Randall GK, Shin C. Experimental support for a model of partnership-based family intervention effects on long-term academic success. School Psychology Quarterly. 2008;23:70–89. doi: 10.1037/1045-3830.23.one.70. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Stoolmiller MS. Antisocial behavior, delinquent peer association, and unsupervised wandering for boys: Growth and modify from childhood to early on adolescence. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1994;29:263–288. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2903_4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Stormshak EA, Bierman KL, McMahon RJ, Lengua Fifty Bear Issues Prevention Enquiry Grouping. Parenting practices and child disruptive behavior problems in early elementary school. Periodical of Child Clinical Psychology. 2000;29:17–29. doi: 10.1207/S15374424jccp2901_3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Stormshak EA, Kaminski R, Goodman MR. Enhancing the parenting skills of Head Start families during the transition to kindergarten. Prevention Science. 2002;three:223–234. doi: x.1023/A:1019998601210. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Stormshak EA, Dishion TJ, Light J, Yasui M. Implementing family unit-centered interventions inside the public eye school: Linking service delivery change to modify in problem behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2005;33:723–733. doi: 10.1007/s10802-005-7650-6. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Tolan P, Gorman-Smith D, Henry D. Supporting families in a high-risk setting: Proximal furnishings of the Rubber children preventive intervention. Periodical of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2004;72:855–869. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.72.5.855. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Webster-Stratton C. Strategies for helping early on school-aged children with oppositional defiant and conduct disorders: The importance of home–school partnerships. School Psychology Review. 1993;22:437–457. [Google Scholar]
• Webster-Stratton C, Hammond M. Predictors of handling consequence in parent training for families with carry problem children. Behavior Therapy. 1990;21:319–337. doi: x.1016/S0005-7894(05)80334-X. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Weiss JR, Weiss B, Han SS, Granger DA, Morton T. Effects of psychotherapy with children and adolescents revisited: A meta-analysis of treatment outcome studies. Psychological Bulletin. 1995;117:450–468. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.450. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Yasui M, Dishion TJ. The ethnic context of child and adolescent problem behavior: Implications for child and family interventions. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 2007;10:137–179. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

riveratintied.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730147/

Share this post