For Whom Does It Work? Subgroup Differences in the Effects of a School-Based Universal Prevention Program
This study examined subgroup differences in the effectiveness of a universal classroom-based preventive intervention. The Good Behavior Game (GBG) was delivered in Grade 1 and 2 in a randomized controlled trial including 759 students. Changes in externalizing and internalizing problems were modeled from Kindergarten through Grade 2. Unlike previous research, a person-centered approach was employed to examine critical combinations of child, peer, family, and demographic characteristics at baseline as moderators of intervention impact. Six subgroups were identified that differed both in baseline risk profiles and intervention responsiveness. The GBG prevented the development of externalizing and internalizing behavior among low-risk children, children with emotional problems, and victimized children. No positive intervention effects were found for children from dysfunctional families and children with combinations of behavioral and social risks. The study presented a novel approach to study subgroup differences in universal preventive interventions and provides first evidence that universal school-based programs may not be effective for children with more severe risks and risks at multiple levels.
KeywordsUniversal preventive intervention Randomized controlled trial Internalizing and externalizing behavior Person-centered approach
The study was financially supported by ZonMW Grant 26200002 and NWO Grant 056-35-012.
- Abidin, R. R. (1983). Parenting stress: Index manual. Charlottesville: Pediatric Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.Google Scholar
- Bierman, K. L., Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Greenberg, M. T., Lochman, J. E., McMahon, R. J., et al. (2010). The effects of a multiyear universal social–emotional learning program: The role of student and school characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 156–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bloom, H. S., & Michalopoulos, C. (2011). When is the story in the subgroups? Strategies for interpreting and reporting intervention effects for subgroups. Prevention Science. doi: 10.1007/s11121-010-0198-x.
- Center, E. M. (2000). Problem behavior at school interview. Rotterdam: Erasmus University.Google Scholar
- De Brock, A. J. L. L., Vermulst, A. A., Gerris, J. R. M., & Abidin, R. R. (1992). Nijmeegse Ouderlijke Stress Index (Nijmegen Parental Stress Index). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
- Dolan, L. J., Jaylan, T., Werthamer, L., & Kellam, S. G. (1989). The good behavior game manual. Baltimomore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Prevention Research Center.Google Scholar
- Farrell, A. D., Henry, D. B., & Bettencourt, A. (2011a). Methodological challenges examining subgroup differences: Examples from universal school-based youth violence prevention trials. Prevention Science. doi: 10.1007/s11121-011-0200-2.
- Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Ialongo, N. S., Werthamer, L., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Wang, S., & Lin, Y. (1999). Proximal impact of two first-grade preventive interventions on the early risk behaviors for later substance abuse, depression, and antisocial behavior. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 599–641.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kellam, S. G., Rebok, G. W., Ialongo, N., & Mayer, L. S. (1994). The course and malleability of aggressive behavior from early first grade into middle school: Results of a developmental epidemiologically-based preventive trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 259–281.Google Scholar
- Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J. M., Ialongo, N. S., Wang, W., Toyinbo, P., et al. (2008). Effects of a universal classroom behavior management program in first and second grades on young adult behavioral, psychiatric, and social outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lanza, S., & Rhoades, B. (2011). Latent class analysis: An alternative perspective on subgroup analysis in prevention and treatment. Prevention Science. doi: 10.1007/s11121-011-0201-1.
- McKee, L., Forehand, R., Rakow, A., Reeslund, K., Roland, E., Hardcastle, E., et al. (2008). Parenting specificity: An examination of the relation between three parenting behaviors and child problem behaviors in the context of a history of caregiver depression. Behavior Modification, 32, 638–658.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mrazek, P., & Haggerty, R. (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers for preventive intervention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2007). Mplus (Vers. 5). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- Offord, D. R., Kraemer, H. C., Kazdin, A. E., Jensen, P. S., & Harrington, R. (1998). Lowering the burden of suffering from child psychiatric disorder: Trade-offs among clinical, targeted, and universal interventions. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 686–694.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Parker, J., Rubin, K. H., Erath, S., Wojslawowicz, J. C., & Buskirk, A. A. (2006). Peer relationships and developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Risk, disorder, and adaptation, vol. 2 (2nd ed., pp. 419–493). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Petras, H., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Muthén, B. O., Ialongo, N. S., & Poduska, J. M. (2008). Developmental epidemiological courses leading to antisocial personality disorder and violent and criminal behavior: Effects by young adulthood of a universal preventive intervention in first- and second-grade classrooms. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95, S45–S59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Shelton, K. K., Frick, P. J., & Wootton, J. (1996). Assessment of parenting practices in families of elementary school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 317–329.Google Scholar
- Verhulst, F. C., Van der Ende, J., & Koot, H. M. (1997). Handleiding voor de teacher's report form. Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.Google Scholar