The Effectiveness of the Stop Now and Plan (SNAP) Program for Boys at Risk for Violence and Delinquency

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Jeffrey D. Burke ; Rolf Loeber
• 关键词：Delinquency ; Violence ; Prevention ; Cognitive behavioral treatment
• 刊名：Prevention Science
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：February 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：16
• 期：2
• 页码：242-253
• 全文大小：329 KB
• 参考文献：1. Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). / Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth & Families.
  2. Allison, P. D. (2012). Handling missing data by maximum likelihood. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from ds/MissingDataByML.pdf" class="a-plus-plus">http://www.statisticalhorizons.com/wp-content/uploads/MissingDataByML.pdf.
  3. Ascher, B. H., Farmer, E. M. Z., Burns, B. J., & Angold, A. (1996). The Child and Adolescent Services Assessment (CASA): Description and psychometrics. / Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 12-0. dx.doi.org/10.1177/106342669600400102" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  4. Augimeri, L. K., Jiang, D., Kogel, C. J., & Carey, J. (2006). / The Under 12 Outreach Project: Effect of a community-based program for children with conduct problems. Toronto: Center for Child Committing Offences, Child Development Institute.
  5. Augimeri, L. K., Farrington, D. P., Koegl, C. J., & Day, D. M. (2007). The SNAP?Under 12 Outreach Project: Effects of a community based program for children with conduct problems. / Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 799-07. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-006-9126-x" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  6. Augimeri, L. K., Walsh, M., & Slater, N. (2011). Rolling out SNAP? an evidence-based intervention: A summary of implementation, evaluation and research. / International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 2, 330-52.
  7. Augimeri, L. K., Walsh, M., Levene, K., Sewell, K., & Rajca, E. (2014). / Stop Now and Plan (SNAP) model. Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 5053-063). New York: Springer Science - Business Media. dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_584" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  8. Bauer, D. J., Sterba, S. K., & Hallfors, D. D. (2008). Evaluating group-based interventions when control participants are ungrouped. / Multivariate Behavioral Research, 43, 210-36. dx.doi.org/10.1080/00273170802034810" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  9. Brinkmeyer, M. Y., & Eyberg, S. M. (2003). Parent-child interaction therapy for oppositional children. In A. E. Kazdin & J. R. Weisz (Eds.), / Evidenced-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents (pp. 204-23). New York: Guilford.
  10. Burke, J. D., Waldman, I., & Lahey, B. B. (2010). Predictive validity of childhood oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: Implications for the DSM-V. / Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 739-51. dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019708" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  11. Burke, J. D., Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. A., & Garbin, S. R. (2014). The challenge and opportunity of parental involvement in juvenile justice services. / Children and Youth Services Review.
  12. Chorpita, B. F., Daleiden, E. L., Ebesutani, C., Young, J., Becker, K. D., Nakamura, B. J., et al. (2011). Evidence-based treatments for children and adolescents: An updated review of indicators of efficacy and effectiveness. / Clinical Psychology-Science and Practice, 18, 154-72. dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2011.01247.x" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  13. Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. / The American Psychologist, 54, 755-64. dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.755" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  14. Earlscourt Child and Family Center. (2001). / SNAP children’s group manual. Toronto, ON: Earlscourt Child and Family Center.
  15. Eyberg, S. M., Nelson, M. M., & Boggs, S. R. (2008). Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for children and adolescents with disruptive behavior. / Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 37, 215-37. dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374410701820117" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  16. Gadow, K. D., & Sprafkin, J. (1994). / Child symptom inventories manual. Stony Brook: Checkmate Plus.
  17. Handwerk, M. L., Field, C. E., & Friman, P. C. (2000). The iatrogenic effects of group intervention for antisocial youth: Premature extrapolations? / Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 223-38. dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1012299716053" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  18. Henggeler, S. W., & Lee, T. (2003). Multisystemic treatment of serious clinical problems. In A. E. Kazdin & J. R. Weisz (Eds.), / Evidence based psychotherapies for children and
• 刊物主题：Public Health; Health Psychology; Child and School Psychology;
• 出版者：Springer US
• ISSN：1573-6695

文摘

Among the available treatments for disruptive behavior problems, a need remains for additional service options to reduce antisocial behavior and prevent further development along delinquent and violent pathways. The Stop Now and Plan (SNAP) Program is an intervention for antisocial behavior among boys between 6 and 11. This paper describes a randomized controlled treatment effectiveness study of SNAP versus standard behavioral health services. The treatment program was delivered to youth with aggressive, rule-breaking, or antisocial behavior in excess of clinical criterion levels. Outcomes were measured at 3, 9, and 15?months from baseline. Youth in the SNAP condition showed significantly greater reduction in aggression, conduct problems, and overall externalizing behavior, as well as counts of oppositional defiant disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms. Additional benefits for SNAP were observed on measures of depression and anxiety. Further analyses indicated that the SNAP program was more effective among those with a higher severity of initial behavioral problems. At 1?year follow-up, treatment benefits for SNAP were maintained on some outcome measures (aggression, ADHD and ODD, depression and anxiety) but not others. Although overall juvenile justice system contact was not significantly different, youth in SNAP had significantly fewer charges against them relative to those standard services. The SNAP Program, when contrasted with standard services alone, was associated with greater, clinically meaningful, reductions in targeted behaviors. It may be particularly effective for youth with more severe behavioral problems and may result in improvements in internalizing problems as well.