Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Process in Group-Based Intervention Delivery: Social Network Analysis and Intra-entity Variability Methods as Windows into the “Black Box”

  • Published:
Prevention Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although the majority of evidence-based programs are designed for group delivery, group process and its role in participant outcomes have received little empirical attention. Data were collected from 20 groups of participants (94 early adolescents, 120 parents) enrolled in an efficacy trial of a mindfulness-based adaptation of the Strengthening Families Program (MSFP). Following each weekly session, participants reported on their relations to group members. Social network analysis and methods sensitive to intraindividual variability were integrated to examine weekly covariation between group process and participant progress, and to predict post-intervention outcomes from levels and changes in group process. Results demonstrate hypothesized links between network indices of group process and intervention outcomes and highlight the value of this unique analytic approach to studying intervention group process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the youth self-report and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.

  • Bagwell, C., Newcomb, A. F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1998). Preadolescent friendship and peer rejection as predictors of adult adjustment. Child Development, 69, 140–153.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barrera, M., Chung, J. Y. Y., Greenberg, M., & Fleming, C. (2002). Preliminary investigation of a group intervention for siblings of pediatric cancer patients. Children’s Health Care, 31, 131–142. doi:10.1207/s15326888chc3102_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American journal of sociology, 92, 1170–1182.

  • Chessor, D. (2008). Developing student wellbeing and resilience using a group process. Educational and Child Psychology, 25, 82–90. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)00114-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coatsworth, J. D., Duncan, L. G., Berrena, E., Bamberger, K. T., Loeschinger, D., Greenberg, M. G., & Nix, R. L. (2014). The mindfulness-enhanced strengthening families program: Integrating brief mindfulness activities and parent training within an evidence-based prevention program. New Directions in Youth Development, 142, 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coatsworth, J. D., Duncan, L., Nix, R., Greenberg, M. G., Gayles, J., Bamberger, K., & Demi, M. A. (2015). Integrating mindfulness with parent training: Effects of the mindfulness-enhanced strengthening families program. Developmental Psychology, 51, 26–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385–396.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, J. N., & Cross, R. (2003). Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance. Social Networks, 25, 197–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeGarmo, D. S., Chamberlain, P., Leve, L. D., & Price, J. (2009). Foster parent intervention engagement moderating child behavior problems and placement disruption. Research on Social Work Practice, 19, 423–433. doi:10.1177/1049731508329407.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, N. L., Wiggins, A. Y., Henneberger, A. K., & Lawrence, E. C. (2013). Combining mentoring with structured group activities: A potential after-school context for fostering relationships between girls and mentors. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33, 44–76. doi:10.1177/0272431612458037.

  • Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755–764. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.755.

  • Domitrovich, C. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2000). The study of implementation: Current findings from effective programs that prevent mental disorders in school-aged children. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11, 193–221. doi:10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1102_04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, L. G. (2007). Assessment of mindful parenting among parents of early adolescents: Development and validation of the Interpersonal Mindfulness in Parenting scale. Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University

  • Duncan, L. G., Coatsworth, J. D., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). A model of mindful parenting: Implications for parent–child relationships and prevention research. Clinical child and family psychology review, 12, 255–270.

  • Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350. doi:10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Erwin, P. G., Purves, D. G., & Johannes, C. K. (2005). Involvement and outcomes in short-term interpersonal cognitive problem solving groups. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 18, 41–46. doi:10.1080/09515070500099694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ettin, M. F., Vaughan, E., & Fiedler, N. (1987). Managing group process in nonprocess groups: Working with the theme-centered psychoeducational group. Group, 11, 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, T. W. (2000). The social dynamics of aggressive and disruptive behavior in school: Implications for behavior consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11, 299–321. doi:10.1207/S1532768XJEPC113&4_02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gest, S. D., Osgood, D. W., Feinberg, M. E., Bierman, K. L., & Moody, J. (2011). Strengthening prevention program theories and evaluations: Contributions from social network analysis. Prevention Science, 12, 349–360. doi:10.1007/s11121-011-0229-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gibaud-Wallston, J., & Wandersman, L. P. (1978). Development and utility of the parenting sense of competence scale. Toronto: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to motivation and achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 21–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. E., Burlingame, G. M., Olsen, J. A., Davies, D. R., & Gleave, R. L. (2005). Group climate, cohesion, alliance, and empathy in group psychotherapy: Multilevel structural equation models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 310–321.

  • Jou, Y. H., & Fukada, H. (1996). The effects of social support reciprocity on mental and physical health of young adults. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 67, 33–41. doi:10.4992/jjpsy.67.33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, J. (1990). The role of reciprocity in social support. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 243–253. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1103_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, K. R. (1983). The clinical application of a group climate measure. In R. R. Dies & K. R. MacKenzie (Eds.), Advances in group psychotherapy: Integrating research and practice (pp. 159–170). New York: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maroulis, S., & Gomez, L. M. (2008). Does “connectedness” matter? Evidence from a social network analysis within a small-school reform. Teachers College Record, 110, 1901–1929. doi:10.3102/01623737009004337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehl, M. R., & Conner, T. S. (2013). Handbook of research methods for studying daily life. New York: Guilford Press.

  • Molloy, L. E. (2012). A within-network variability approach to understanding “process” in group-based interventions. Doctoral Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University

  • Molgaard, V. K., Kumpfer, K. L., & Fleming, E. (2001). The strengthening families program: For parents and youth 10–14; A video-based curriculum. Ames: Iowa State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody, J., & White, D. R. (2003). Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups. American Sociological Review, 68, 103–127.

  • Moolenaar, N., Daly, A., & Sleegers, P. (2011). Ties with potential: Social network structure and innovative climate in Dutch schools. Teachers College Record, 113, 1983–2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthen, B., & Satorra, A. (1995). Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methodology, 25, 267–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and identity, 2, 223–250.

  • Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ram, N., Conroy, D. E., Pincus, A., Hyde, A. L., & Molloy, L. E. (2012). Tethering theory to method: Using measures of intraindividual variability to operationalize individuals’ dynamic characteristics. In G. H. J. Herring (Ed.), Advances in longitudinal modeling in the social and behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redmond, C., Spoth, R. L., Shin, C., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). Modeling long-term parent outcomes of two universal family-focused preventive interventions: One-year follow-up results. J Consult Clin Psychol, 67, 975–984. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.67.6.975.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, M. (1965). Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE). Acceptance and commitment therapy. Measures package, 61.

  • Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: a user’s portfolio: Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor: NFER-NELSON.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharry, J. (1999). Toward solution groupwork: Brief Solution-Focused ideas in group parent training. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 18, 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valente, T. W., Coronges, K., Lakon, C., & Costenbader, E. (2008). How correlated are network centrality measures? Connections, 28, 16–26.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yalom, I. D. (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (5th ed.). New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research reported in this article was supported by Grant R01DA026217 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and through grants from The Pennsylvania State University Children Youth and Families Consortium. The content herein is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIDA, and such endorsements should not be inferred.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Virginia, Curry School of Education, P.O. Box 400281, Charlottesville, VA, 22904, USA

    Lauren Molloy Elreda

  2. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    J. Douglas Coatsworth

  3. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Scott D. Gest, Nilam Ram & Katharine Bamberger

Authors
  1. Lauren Molloy Elreda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Douglas Coatsworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Scott D. Gest
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nilam Ram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Katharine Bamberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren Molloy Elreda.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Molloy Elreda, L., Coatsworth, J.D., Gest, S.D. et al. Understanding Process in Group-Based Intervention Delivery: Social Network Analysis and Intra-entity Variability Methods as Windows into the “Black Box”. Prev Sci 17, 925–936 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0699-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0699-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation