U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Evaluation of a Community-Based Program for Young Boys At-Risk of Antisocial Behavior: Results and Issues

NCJ Number
306910
Journal
Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Volume: 17 Issue: 1 Dated: Feb 2008 Pages: 12–19
Date Published
February 2008
Length
8 pages
Annotation

This paper reports on a research study that analyzed the impact of a community-based intervention program for boys at risk of antisocial behavior, and compared the behavior changes of intervention groups to those of a wait-list comparison group; the authors describe their research methodology, outcomes, and provide an analysis of results.

Abstract

The authors assess the impact of a community-based intervention program for boys six- to 11-years old at-risk of antisocial behavior, and compare changes in behavior and competence pre-post for intervention and wait-list comparison group. Research methodology involved interested parents calling for enrolment of their sons; inclusion required police contact and/or clinical scores on Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL) or Teacher Report Form (TRF), no developmental delay, and they must be English-speaking. The program included two core 12-week groups (children’s, parents’) and optional additional services. Twelve sessions from February 2002 through December 2005 provide pre-post intervention data, boys waiting at least six months formed a comparison group which started April 2005. Outcomes included CBCL and TRF behavior scales (rule-breaking, aggression, conduct, total problems) and competence. The authors performed repeated measures analysis of variance. Pre- and post-outcome comparisons indicated improvements among all boys, with significant differences favoring intervention boys on CBCL behavior scales, but not TRF outcomes. Effect sizes were small to medium. Persisting high post-behavior levels, unmeasured variation in additional services, and other design and sampling issues are noted. The authors conclude that more rigorously designed program evaluation is required. Publisher Abstract Provided

Date Published: February 1, 2008