Effectiveness of Stay Cool Kids (Alles Kidzzz): An indicated preventive intervention for externalizing problem behavior in school age children.

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

NL-OMON

Registry ID

NL-OMON20239

Enrollment

264

Registered

2011-02-17

Start date

2007-12-18

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2024-02-28

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Externalizing behavior (externaliserend gedrag) School-based intervention (interventie op school)

Interventions

Stay Cool Kids: 1. Individual, tailor-made intervention

2. School-based

3. Social-cognitive basis

4. Targeted. The Stay Cool Kids training is a social cognitive intervention that focuses on reciprocal relations between cognitions, emotions, and behavior of the child. The training is designed to r

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Children in 4th-grade (elementary school), 9-11 years old, with elevated levels of externalizing behavior; 2. (Sub)clinical level of externalizing behavior, indicated by teachers (Techer Report Form T-score > 60).

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Autism Spectrum Disorder; 2. If children already receive treatment for their externalizing behavior problems.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Children’s measures were collected in their school settings and were administered to children by trained research assistants. Parents and teachers received questionnaires in meetings at school or by mail: 1. Reactive and Proactive Aggression: Teacher Rating of Aggression (TRA; Dodge & Coie, 1987; Dutch version; Hendrickx, Crombez, Roeyers, & Orobio de Castro, 2003). Parents and children reported about child’s reactive and proactive aggression as well, with adapted parent and child versions of the TRA; 2. Externalizing behavior: As a screening measure the Externalizing subscale of the Teacher Report Form (age 6-18, Achenbach, 2001; Verhulst, van der Ende, & Koot, 1997) was used; 3. Prosocial Behavior: Parents were asked to report about the prosocial behavior of the child with the Matson Evaluation of Social Skills for parents (MESSY, Bell-Dolan & Alan, 1998). The MESSY for Youngsters (Hulstijn, et al. 2006; Matson, Rotatori, & Helsel, 1983) was used to measure prosocial behavior reported by the child.	—

Measure

Time frame

Children’s measures were collected in their school settings and were administered to children by trained research assistants. Parents and teachers received questionnaires in meetings at school or by mail: 1. Reactive and Proactive Aggression: Teacher Rating of Aggression (TRA; Dodge & Coie, 1987; Dutch version; Hendrickx, Crombez, Roeyers, & Orobio de Castro, 2003). Parents and children reported about child’s reactive and proactive aggression as well, with adapted parent and child versions of the TRA; 2. Externalizing behavior: As a screening measure the Externalizing subscale of the Teacher Report Form (age 6-18, Achenbach, 2001; Verhulst, van der Ende, & Koot, 1997) was used; 3. Prosocial Behavior: Parents were asked to report about the prosocial behavior of the child with the Matson Evaluation of Social Skills for parents (MESSY, Bell-Dolan & Alan, 1998). The MESSY for Youngsters (Hulstijn, et al. 2006; Matson, Rotatori, & Helsel, 1983) was used to measure prosocial behavior reported by the child.

—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
1. Social Cognitions: Four hypothetical stories were presented to children (Social Information Processing test, De Castro et al., 2005). The stories all concerned being hindered by a peer whose intentions are ambiguous. Immediately after hearing a story the child was asked to indicate why the peer in the story might have acted the way he or she did (intent attribution) and what the child would do when the events in the vignette would actually happen to them (response generation). Next, a possible behavioral response to the problem was presented to measure Approval of Aggression. Children similarly had to indicate on a 10-point scale to what extent they would enact a presented aggressive response themselves; 2. Self Perception: To assess self perception, children were asked to fill in the subscale ‘Behavior attitude’ of the Dutch version of the Self Perceived Competence Scale for Children (Harter, 1982; Veerman, Straathof, Treffers, van den Bergh, & ten Brink, 1997).	—

Measure

Time frame

1. Social Cognitions: Four hypothetical stories were presented to children (Social Information Processing test, De Castro et al., 2005). The stories all concerned being hindered by a peer whose intentions are ambiguous. Immediately after hearing a story the child was asked to indicate why the peer in the story might have acted the way he or she did (intent attribution) and what the child would do when the events in the vignette would actually happen to them (response generation). Next, a possible behavioral response to the problem was presented to measure Approval of Aggression. Children similarly had to indicate on a 10-point scale to what extent they would enact a presented aggressive response themselves; 2. Self Perception: To assess self perception, children were asked to fill in the subscale ‘Behavior attitude’ of the Dutch version of the Self Perceived Competence Scale for Children (Harter, 1982; Veerman, Straathof, Treffers, van den Bergh, & ten Brink, 1997).

—

Contacts

Public ContactW.M. Londen-Barentsen, van

Postbus 80140

M.vanlonden@uu.nl+31 (0)32 539085

Outcome results

None listed

Source: NL-OMON (via WHO ICTRP)