Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder
Conditions
Keywords
Conduct problems, callous-unemotional traits, disruptive behavior disorders
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to modify behavior therapy so that it is optimized for children with conduct problems and callous-unemotional traits by emphasizing reward components and de-emphasizing punishment components.
Detailed description
Several studies have demonstrated that standard behavioral treatments do not appear to be sufficient for children with conduct problems (CP) and callous-unemotional (CU) traits. Other research suggests that children with CPCU are less responsive to punishments as evaluated using controlled laboratory tasks. Based on these two sets of findings, it was hypothesized that behavioral treatment modified to emphasize reward and de-emphasize punishments would be advantageous when used to treat children with CPCU. This hypothesis was tested in a treatment development study that had three phases. During phase 1, which occurred in 2010, the intervention was planned and treatment procedures and manuals were developed. During phase 2, which occurred in 2011, a pilot study was conducted in which the intervention was tested in an iterative manner in a group of 12 children with conduct problems and callous-unemotional traits. In phase 3, a larger trial was conducted using a cross over design, with one-half of participants getting standard behavioral treatment for four weeks followed by modified behavioral treatment for four weeks and remaining participants receiving treatments in the reverse order.Treatments were evaluated using parent ratings, counselor ratings, and frequency counts of behavior during treatments.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALReward-Emphasized Treatment
Intensive behavioral treatment delivered in a summer camp setting, with reward components emphasized and punishment components de-emphasized
BEHAVIORALStandard Treatment
Intensive behavioral treatment delivered in a summer camp setting, with rewards and punishment equally emphasized.
Sponsors
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Florida International University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
7 Years to 12 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Clinical diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder * Ages 7 to 12 years old * t-score of 65 or above on CU scale of Antisocial Process Screening Device as rated by parents or teacher * at least parent/caregiver fluent in English * able to participate in vigorous outdoor activities * parent/caregiver agreement to keep psychoactive medication treatment constant throughout the study
Exclusion criteria
* Full scale intelligence quotient (IQ) of less than 75 * medical conditions that contra-indicate participation in treatment * current or past clinical diagnosis of pervasive developmental disorder, schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, sexual disorder, organic mental disorder, or eating disorder * lack of functional impairment * current or past seizures or other neurological disorders
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Conduct Problems | Weekly | Counselors recorded each instance of conduct problems, defined as lying, stealing, intentional destruction of property, and intentional aggression. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment. |
| Negative Verbalizations | Weekly | Counselors recorded each instance of negative verbalizations, defined as verbal abuse to staff, teasing peers, and swearing. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment. |
| Complaining | Weekly | Counselors recorded each instance of complaining. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment. |
| Interruption | Weekly | Counselors recorded each instance of interrupting. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment. |
| Noncompliance | Weekly | Counselors recorded each instance of noncompliance. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment. |
| Rule Violations | Weekly | Counselors recorded each instance of rule violations. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment. |
| Positive Peer Behavior | Weekly | Counselors recorded each instance of positive behavior with peers, defined as helping, sharing and ignoring teasing. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment. |
| Minutes in Time Out | Weekly | Counselors recorded the total number of minutes children were in Time Out due to intentional aggression, intentional destruction of property, or repeated noncompliance. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment. |
| Number of Time Outs | Weekly | Counselors recorded the total number of Time Outs children served due to intentional aggression, intentional destruction of property, or repeated noncompliance. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment. |
| Minutes of Physical Management | Weekly | Counselors recorded the total number of minutes children had to be physically managed due to behavior dangerous to themselves or others. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| How Much Did Your Child Benefit From Treatment? | End of each treatment, at weeks 4 and 8 | At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: How much did your child benefit from this treatment?. This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much). |
| How Much Did You (the Parent) Benefit From Treatment? | End of each treatment, at weeks 4 and 8 | At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: How much did you benefit from this treatment?. This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much). |
| How Much Did Your Child Enjoy the Treatment? | End of each treatment, at weeks 4 and 8 | At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: How much did your child this treatment?. This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much). |
| Would You Send Your Child to This Treatment Again? | End of each treatment, at weeks 4 and 8 | At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: Would you send your child to this treatment if you could do it over again?. This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 (no definitely) to 4 (yes definitely). |
| IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Counselor | Weekly | At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's overall inattentive-overactive-impulsive behavior during the week. Rating were completed using Likert scales that ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much). Items were summed to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 0 to 15. |
| Overall Satisfaction | End of each treatment, at weeks 4 and 8 | At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: Please rate your overall satisfaction with this treatment as compared with other treatment services your child has received. This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 (much less satisfied with this program) to 4 (much more satisfied with this program). |
| Overall Effectiveness | End of each treatment, at weeks 4 and 8 | At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: Please rate how effective this treatment was in changing your child as compared with other treatment services your child has received. This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 (this treatment much less effective) to 4 (this treatment much more effective). |
| Overall Treatment Recommendation - Counselor | End of all treatment, at week 8 | At end end of both treatment blocks, counselors sorted children into one of four treatment response groups: (1) responded best to standard behavior therapy; (2) responded best to modified behavior therapy; (3) responded well to both treatments; (4) did not respond to either treatment |
| Overall Treatment Recommendation - Parent | End of all treatment, at week 8 | At end end of both treatment blocks, parents selected which treatment they though was best for their child - standard behavioral treatment or modified behavioral treatment |
| Recommend Treatment? | End of each treatment, at weeks 4 and 8 | At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: Would you recommend this treatment to other parents?. This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 (no definitely) to 4 (yes definitely). |
| IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Parent | Weekly | At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's overall inattentive-overactive-impulsive behavior during the week. Rating were completed using Likert scales that ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much). Items were summed to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 0 to 15. |
| IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Counselor | Weekly | At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's overall oppositional-defiant behavior during the week. Rating were completed using Likert scales that ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much). Items were summed to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 0 to 15. |
| IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Parent | Weekly | At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's overall oppositional-defiant behavior during the week. Rating were completed using Likert scales that ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much). Items were summed to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 0 to 15. |
| WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Counselor | Weekly | At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's serious conduct problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 (no problem) to 7 (serious problem). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems. |
| WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Parent | Weekly | At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's serious conduct problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 (no problem) to 7 (serious problem). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems. |
| WPRF Rule Following Problems - Counselor | Weekly | At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's rule following problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 (no problem) to 7 (serious problem). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems. |
| WPRF Rule Following Problems - Parent | Weekly | At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's rule following problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 (no problem) to 7 (serious problem). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems. |
| WPRF Overall Problems - Counselor | Weekly | At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's overall problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 (no problem) to 7 (serious problem). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems. |
| WPRF Overall Problems - Parent | Weekly | At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's overall problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 (no problem) to 7 (serious problem). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Overall Sample Summer treatment program: Intensive behavioral treatment delivered in a summer camp setting. During one block of four weeks, participants received modified behavioral treatment (MBT) that emphasized rewards and de-emphasized punishments. During another block of four weeks, participants received standard behavior treatment (SBT) that balanced reward and punishment. Order of treatment blocks was counter-balanced across participants, and primary analyses were within-subject comparisons. Therefore, we report demographics for the full sample. | 48 |
| Total | 48 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Overall Sample |
|---|---|
| Age, Categorical <=18 years | 48 Participants |
| Age, Categorical >=65 years | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years | 0 Participants |
| Age, Continuous | 9.29 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.37 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 27 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 21 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 4 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 6 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 3 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 34 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 48 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 10 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 38 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | — / — | — / — |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 |
Outcome results
Primary
Complaining
Counselors recorded each instance of complaining. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | Complaining | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 5.25 Number of complaints per day | Standard Error 1.02 |
| Overall Sample | Complaining | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 4.92 Number of complaints per day | Standard Error 1.25 |
| Overall Sample | Complaining | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 2.76 Number of complaints per day | Standard Error 1.32 |
| Overall Sample | Complaining | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 3.54 Number of complaints per day | Standard Error 1.21 |
| Overall Sample | Complaining | Modified behavior therapy - week 1 | 3.33 Number of complaints per day | Standard Error 1 |
| Overall Sample | Complaining | Modified behavior therapy - week 2 | 5.18 Number of complaints per day | Standard Error 1.25 |
| Overall Sample | Complaining | Modified behavior therapy - week 3 | 5.90 Number of complaints per day | Standard Error 1.32 |
| Overall Sample | Complaining | Modified behavior therapy - week 4 | 5.95 Number of complaints per day | Standard Error 1.24 |
Primary
Conduct Problems
Counselors recorded each instance of conduct problems, defined as lying, stealing, intentional destruction of property, and intentional aggression. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | Conduct Problems | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 0.76 Number of conduct problems per day | Standard Error 0.27 |
| Overall Sample | Conduct Problems | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 1.08 Number of conduct problems per day | Standard Error 0.35 |
| Overall Sample | Conduct Problems | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 0.41 Number of conduct problems per day | Standard Error 0.54 |
| Overall Sample | Conduct Problems | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 0.92 Number of conduct problems per day | Standard Error 0.48 |
| Overall Sample | Conduct Problems | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 0.76 Number of conduct problems per day | Standard Error 0.28 |
| Overall Sample | Conduct Problems | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 1.26 Number of conduct problems per day | Standard Error 0.36 |
| Overall Sample | Conduct Problems | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 1.54 Number of conduct problems per day | Standard Error 0.54 |
| Overall Sample | Conduct Problems | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 1.42 Number of conduct problems per day | Standard Error 0.49 |
Primary
Interruption
Counselors recorded each instance of interrupting. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | Interruption | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 9.86 Number of interruptions per day | Standard Error 1.32 |
| Overall Sample | Interruption | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 14.81 Number of interruptions per day | Standard Error 2.02 |
| Overall Sample | Interruption | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 13.43 Number of interruptions per day | Standard Error 2.51 |
| Overall Sample | Interruption | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 12.61 Number of interruptions per day | Standard Error 2.27 |
| Overall Sample | Interruption | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 10.21 Number of interruptions per day | Standard Error 1.41 |
| Overall Sample | Interruption | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 14.32 Number of interruptions per day | Standard Error 2.06 |
| Overall Sample | Interruption | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 19.32 Number of interruptions per day | Standard Error 2.54 |
| Overall Sample | Interruption | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 19.66 Number of interruptions per day | Standard Error 2.28 |
Primary
Minutes in Time Out
Counselors recorded the total number of minutes children were in Time Out due to intentional aggression, intentional destruction of property, or repeated noncompliance. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | Minutes in Time Out | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 10.62 Minutes in Time Out per day | Standard Error 3.03 |
| Overall Sample | Minutes in Time Out | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 14.77 Minutes in Time Out per day | Standard Error 3.68 |
| Overall Sample | Minutes in Time Out | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 9.50 Minutes in Time Out per day | Standard Error 3.33 |
| Overall Sample | Minutes in Time Out | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 10.17 Minutes in Time Out per day | Standard Error 3.45 |
| Overall Sample | Minutes in Time Out | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 6.57 Minutes in Time Out per day | Standard Error 3.06 |
| Overall Sample | Minutes in Time Out | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 12.15 Minutes in Time Out per day | Standard Error 3.72 |
| Overall Sample | Minutes in Time Out | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 10.76 Minutes in Time Out per day | Standard Error 3.45 |
| Overall Sample | Minutes in Time Out | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 10.67 Minutes in Time Out per day | Standard Error 3.52 |
Primary
Minutes of Physical Management
Counselors recorded the total number of minutes children had to be physically managed due to behavior dangerous to themselves or others. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | Minutes of Physical Management | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 0.30 Minutes of Physical Manage per day | Standard Error 0.16 |
| Overall Sample | Minutes of Physical Management | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 0.09 Minutes of Physical Manage per day | Standard Error 0.3 |
| Overall Sample | Minutes of Physical Management | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 0.21 Minutes of Physical Manage per day | Standard Error 0.16 |
| Overall Sample | Minutes of Physical Management | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 0.29 Minutes of Physical Manage per day | Standard Error 0.17 |
| Overall Sample | Minutes of Physical Management | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 0.31 Minutes of Physical Manage per day | Standard Error 0.17 |
| Overall Sample | Minutes of Physical Management | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 0.54 Minutes of Physical Manage per day | Standard Error 0.3 |
| Overall Sample | Minutes of Physical Management | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 0.28 Minutes of Physical Manage per day | Standard Error 0.17 |
| Overall Sample | Minutes of Physical Management | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 0.21 Minutes of Physical Manage per day | Standard Error 0.17 |
Primary
Negative Verbalizations
Counselors recorded each instance of negative verbalizations, defined as verbal abuse to staff, teasing peers, and swearing. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | Negative Verbalizations | Standard behavior therapy - week 1 | 5.70 Number of negative verbals per day | Standard Error 1.31 |
| Overall Sample | Negative Verbalizations | Standard behavior therapy - week 2 | 7.32 Number of negative verbals per day | Standard Error 1.53 |
| Overall Sample | Negative Verbalizations | Standard behavior therapy - week 3 | 6.73 Number of negative verbals per day | Standard Error 2.41 |
| Overall Sample | Negative Verbalizations | Standard behavior therapy - week 4 | 5.91 Number of negative verbals per day | Standard Error 1.98 |
| Overall Sample | Negative Verbalizations | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 4.94 Number of negative verbals per day | Standard Error 1.36 |
| Overall Sample | Negative Verbalizations | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 9.16 Number of negative verbals per day | Standard Error 1.58 |
| Overall Sample | Negative Verbalizations | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 10.63 Number of negative verbals per day | Standard Error 2.45 |
| Overall Sample | Negative Verbalizations | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 10.95 Number of negative verbals per day | Standard Error 2.01 |
Primary
Noncompliance
Counselors recorded each instance of noncompliance. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | Noncompliance | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 3.82 Number of noncompliance per day | Standard Error 0.89 |
| Overall Sample | Noncompliance | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 4.29 Number of noncompliance per day | Standard Error 0.97 |
| Overall Sample | Noncompliance | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 3.52 Number of noncompliance per day | Standard Error 0.84 |
| Overall Sample | Noncompliance | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 2.99 Number of noncompliance per day | Standard Error 0.85 |
| Overall Sample | Noncompliance | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 3.35 Number of noncompliance per day | Standard Error 0.9 |
| Overall Sample | Noncompliance | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 5.16 Number of noncompliance per day | Standard Error 0.97 |
| Overall Sample | Noncompliance | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 4.26 Number of noncompliance per day | Standard Error 0.87 |
| Overall Sample | Noncompliance | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 4.28 Number of noncompliance per day | Standard Error 0.87 |
Primary
Number of Time Outs
Counselors recorded the total number of Time Outs children served due to intentional aggression, intentional destruction of property, or repeated noncompliance. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | Number of Time Outs | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 0.69 Number of Time Outs per day | Standard Error 0.25 |
| Overall Sample | Number of Time Outs | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 1.00 Number of Time Outs per day | Standard Error 0.26 |
| Overall Sample | Number of Time Outs | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 1.15 Number of Time Outs per day | Standard Error 0.28 |
| Overall Sample | Number of Time Outs | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 0.76 Number of Time Outs per day | Standard Error 0.27 |
| Overall Sample | Number of Time Outs | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 0.82 Number of Time Outs per day | Standard Error 0.27 |
| Overall Sample | Number of Time Outs | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 1.09 Number of Time Outs per day | Standard Error 0.26 |
| Overall Sample | Number of Time Outs | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 0.98 Number of Time Outs per day | Standard Error 0.28 |
| Overall Sample | Number of Time Outs | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 1.27 Number of Time Outs per day | Standard Error 0.28 |
Primary
Positive Peer Behavior
Counselors recorded each instance of positive behavior with peers, defined as helping, sharing and ignoring teasing. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | Positive Peer Behavior | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 4.91 Number of positive peer behave per day | Standard Error 0.48 |
| Overall Sample | Positive Peer Behavior | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 4.51 Number of positive peer behave per day | Standard Error 0.48 |
| Overall Sample | Positive Peer Behavior | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 4.84 Number of positive peer behave per day | Standard Error 0.58 |
| Overall Sample | Positive Peer Behavior | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 4.33 Number of positive peer behave per day | Standard Error 0.49 |
| Overall Sample | Positive Peer Behavior | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 5.42 Number of positive peer behave per day | Standard Error 0.49 |
| Overall Sample | Positive Peer Behavior | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 7.08 Number of positive peer behave per day | Standard Error 0.51 |
| Overall Sample | Positive Peer Behavior | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 6.72 Number of positive peer behave per day | Standard Error 0.59 |
| Overall Sample | Positive Peer Behavior | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 9.72 Number of positive peer behave per day | Standard Error 0.52 |
Primary
Rule Violations
Counselors recorded each instance of rule violations. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | Rule Violations | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 36.65 Number of rule violations per day | Standard Error 6.08 |
| Overall Sample | Rule Violations | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 40.84 Number of rule violations per day | Standard Error 6.1 |
| Overall Sample | Rule Violations | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 33.93 Number of rule violations per day | Standard Error 6.8 |
| Overall Sample | Rule Violations | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 35.31 Number of rule violations per day | Standard Error 7.26 |
| Overall Sample | Rule Violations | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 27.28 Number of rule violations per day | Standard Error 6.13 |
| Overall Sample | Rule Violations | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 41.89 Number of rule violations per day | Standard Error 6.06 |
| Overall Sample | Rule Violations | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 46.99 Number of rule violations per day | Standard Error 6.86 |
| Overall Sample | Rule Violations | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 49.56 Number of rule violations per day | Standard Error 7.21 |
Secondary
How Much Did Your Child Benefit From Treatment?
At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: How much did your child benefit from this treatment?. This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much).
Time frame: End of each treatment, at weeks 4 and 8
Population: Four children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria). One was excluded because parent did not return completed ratings.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | How Much Did Your Child Benefit From Treatment? | Standard behavior therapy | 2.31 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.15 |
| Overall Sample | How Much Did Your Child Benefit From Treatment? | Modified behavior therapy | 2.45 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.15 |
Secondary
How Much Did Your Child Enjoy the Treatment?
At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: How much did your child this treatment?. This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much).
Time frame: End of each treatment, at weeks 4 and 8
Population: Four children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria). One was excluded because parent did not return completed ratings.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | How Much Did Your Child Enjoy the Treatment? | Standard behavior therapy | 1.89 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.15 |
| Overall Sample | How Much Did Your Child Enjoy the Treatment? | Modified behavior therapy | 2.12 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.15 |
Secondary
How Much Did You (the Parent) Benefit From Treatment?
At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: How much did you benefit from this treatment?. This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much).
Time frame: End of each treatment, at weeks 4 and 8
Population: Four children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria). One was excluded because parent did not return completed ratings.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | How Much Did You (the Parent) Benefit From Treatment? | Standard behavior therapy | 2.36 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.13 |
| Overall Sample | How Much Did You (the Parent) Benefit From Treatment? | Modified behavior therapy | 2.40 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.13 |
Secondary
IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Counselor
At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's overall inattentive-overactive-impulsive behavior during the week. Rating were completed using Likert scales that ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much). Items were summed to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 0 to 15.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 5.36 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.57 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 5.57 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.58 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 6.15 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.6 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 5.78 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.58 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 5.51 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.58 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 5.59 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.58 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 5.95 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.6 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 6.14 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.58 |
Secondary
IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Parent
At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's overall inattentive-overactive-impulsive behavior during the week. Rating were completed using Likert scales that ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much). Items were summed to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 0 to 15.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 6.12 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.58 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 6.09 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.58 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 6.71 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.59 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 7.11 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.6 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 6.88 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.58 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 6.10 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.59 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 6.15 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.63 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Inattentive/Overactive Scale - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 6.38 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.6 |
Secondary
IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Counselor
At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's overall oppositional-defiant behavior during the week. Rating were completed using Likert scales that ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much). Items were summed to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 0 to 15.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 4.55 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.56 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 4.99 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.58 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 4.47 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.56 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 4.85 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.58 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 4.20 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.56 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 5.01 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.58 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 4.94 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.56 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 5.38 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.58 |
Secondary
IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Parent
At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's overall oppositional-defiant behavior during the week. Rating were completed using Likert scales that ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much). Items were summed to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 0 to 15.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 6.71 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.7 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 6.99 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.56 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 6.50 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.63 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 6.15 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.63 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 5.75 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.75 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 5.80 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.57 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 5.26 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.65 |
| Overall Sample | IOWA Oppositional-defiant Scale - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 5.20 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.62 |
Secondary
Overall Effectiveness
At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: Please rate how effective this treatment was in changing your child as compared with other treatment services your child has received. This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 (this treatment much less effective) to 4 (this treatment much more effective).
Time frame: End of each treatment, at weeks 4 and 8
Population: Four children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria). One was excluded because parent did not return completed ratings.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | Overall Effectiveness | Standard behavior therapy | 3.66 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.1 |
| Overall Sample | Overall Effectiveness | Modified behavior therapy | 3.60 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.1 |
Secondary
Overall Satisfaction
At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: Please rate your overall satisfaction with this treatment as compared with other treatment services your child has received. This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 (much less satisfied with this program) to 4 (much more satisfied with this program).
Time frame: End of each treatment, at weeks 4 and 8
Population: Four children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria). One was excluded because parent did not return completed ratings.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | Overall Satisfaction | Standard behavior therapy | 3.75 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.07 |
| Overall Sample | Overall Satisfaction | Modified behavior therapy | 3.83 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.07 |
Secondary
Overall Treatment Recommendation - Counselor
At end end of both treatment blocks, counselors sorted children into one of four treatment response groups: (1) responded best to standard behavior therapy; (2) responded best to modified behavior therapy; (3) responded well to both treatments; (4) did not respond to either treatment
Time frame: End of all treatment, at week 8
Population: Four children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria). One excluded because only completed one block of treatment.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | Overall Treatment Recommendation - Counselor | Responded best to modified treatment | 23 percentage of participants |
| Overall Sample | Overall Treatment Recommendation - Counselor | Responded equally to both treatments | 34 percentage of participants |
| Overall Sample | Overall Treatment Recommendation - Counselor | Responded best to standard treatment | 27 percentage of participants |
| Overall Sample | Overall Treatment Recommendation - Counselor | Did not respond to either treatment | 16 percentage of participants |
Secondary
Overall Treatment Recommendation - Parent
At end end of both treatment blocks, parents selected which treatment they though was best for their child - standard behavioral treatment or modified behavioral treatment
Time frame: End of all treatment, at week 8
Population: Four children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria). One excluded because only completed one block of treatment.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | Overall Treatment Recommendation - Parent | Responded best to standard treatment | 41 percentage of participants |
| Overall Sample | Overall Treatment Recommendation - Parent | Responded best to modified treatment | 59 percentage of participants |
Secondary
Recommend Treatment?
At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: Would you recommend this treatment to other parents?. This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 (no definitely) to 4 (yes definitely).
Time frame: End of each treatment, at weeks 4 and 8
Population: Four children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria). One was excluded because parent did not return completed ratings.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | Recommend Treatment? | Standard behavior therapy | 3.90 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.04 |
| Overall Sample | Recommend Treatment? | Modified behavior therapy | 3.97 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.04 |
Secondary
Would You Send Your Child to This Treatment Again?
At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: Would you send your child to this treatment if you could do it over again?. This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 (no definitely) to 4 (yes definitely).
Time frame: End of each treatment, at weeks 4 and 8
Population: Four children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria). One was excluded because parent did not return completed ratings.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | Would You Send Your Child to This Treatment Again? | Standard behavior therapy | 3.83 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.06 |
| Overall Sample | Would You Send Your Child to This Treatment Again? | Modified behavior therapy | 3.83 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.06 |
Secondary
WPRF Overall Problems - Counselor
At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's overall problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 (no problem) to 7 (serious problem). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | WPRF Overall Problems - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 3.42 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.18 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Overall Problems - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 3.66 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.19 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Overall Problems - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 3.49 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.19 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Overall Problems - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 3.46 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.18 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Overall Problems - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 3.36 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.18 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Overall Problems - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 3.38 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.19 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Overall Problems - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 3.63 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.19 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Overall Problems - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 3.72 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.18 |
Secondary
WPRF Overall Problems - Parent
At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's overall problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 (no problem) to 7 (serious problem). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | WPRF Overall Problems - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 3.68 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.27 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Overall Problems - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 3.98 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.26 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Overall Problems - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 3.57 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.24 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Overall Problems - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 3.42 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.25 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Overall Problems - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 3.65 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.29 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Overall Problems - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 3.62 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.26 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Overall Problems - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 3.43 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.25 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Overall Problems - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 3.44 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.25 |
Secondary
WPRF Rule Following Problems - Counselor
At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's rule following problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 (no problem) to 7 (serious problem). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | WPRF Rule Following Problems - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 2.07 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.14 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Rule Following Problems - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 2.18 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.15 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Rule Following Problems - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 2.17 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.15 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Rule Following Problems - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 2.19 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.16 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Rule Following Problems - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 2.10 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.14 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Rule Following Problems - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 2.17 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.15 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Rule Following Problems - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 2.26 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.15 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Rule Following Problems - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 2.30 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.15 |
Secondary
WPRF Rule Following Problems - Parent
At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's rule following problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 (no problem) to 7 (serious problem). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | WPRF Rule Following Problems - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 3.63 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.25 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Rule Following Problems - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 3.88 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.26 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Rule Following Problems - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 3.37 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.25 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Rule Following Problems - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 3.47 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.24 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Rule Following Problems - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 3.35 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.26 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Rule Following Problems - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 3.31 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.26 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Rule Following Problems - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 3.12 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.26 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Rule Following Problems - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 3.31 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.24 |
Secondary
WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Counselor
At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's serious conduct problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 (no problem) to 7 (serious problem). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 1.71 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.12 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 1.81 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.12 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 1.69 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.12 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Counselor | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 1.70 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.12 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 1.66 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.12 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 1.83 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.12 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 1.88 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.12 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Counselor | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 1.91 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.12 |
Secondary
WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Parent
At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's serious conduct problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 (no problem) to 7 (serious problem). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems.
Time frame: Weekly
Population: Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Sample | WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 2.47 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.19 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 2.48 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.19 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 2.22 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.19 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Parent | Standard Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 1.96 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.16 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 1 | 2.05 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.21 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 2 | 1.94 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.19 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 3 | 2.03 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.19 |
| Overall Sample | WPRF Serious Conduct Problems Scale - Parent | Modified Behavior Therapy - week 4 | 2.00 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.16 |