Working As A School Psychologist With Children From Divorce Family 2
Table of Contents
School Psychologist
Following are assignment description on syllabus
Research Paper: Working with Special Populations (due Dec. 5th). School psychologists are often
asked to work with students with unique learning needs. For this assignment you will research the
legal and ethical issues related to working with a special population of students, and how these affect
a school psychologist’s role. The topic may be selected from the list provided on page 13. The paper
must be written consistent with APA style guidelines and address:
• Literature and research in the area
• Legal issues and implications (referencing applicable federal, state, and local laws)
• Related ethical issues (referencing NASP and APA codes)
• Implications for school psychology practice
——————————————————————————————————————————————————–
The research paper need to be at least 10 pages, APA style with references.
My topic focus on working with children from divorce family.
I will attach
- one interview report which introduces the role of school psychologists in a school setting
- some articles I found that might be able to use in the paper
- in-class powerpoints offering legal and ethical code of school psychology
- one sample paper
- required textbook for my class
- NASP ethic code
- APA ethic code
Fifteen-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Trial of a Preventive Intervention for Divorced Families: Effects on Mental Health and
Substance Use Outcomes in Young Adulthood
Sharlene A. Wolchik, Irwin N. Sandler, Jenn-Yun Tein, Nicole E. Mahrer, Roger E. Millsap, Emily Winslow, Clorinda Vélez, Michele M. Porter, Linda J. Luecken, and Amanda Reed
Arizona State University
Objective: This 15-year follow-up assessed the effects of a preventive intervention for divorced families, the New Beginnings Program (NBP), versus a literature control condition (LC). Method: Mothers and their 9- to 12-year-olds (N � 240 families) participated in the trial. Young adults (YAs) reported on their mental health and substance-related disorders, mental health and substance use problems, and substance use. Mothers reported on YA’s mental health and substance use problems. Disorders were assessed over the past 9 years (since previous follow-up) and 15 years (since program entry). Alcohol and marijuana use, other substance use and polydrug use, and mental health problems and substance use problems were assessed over the past month, past year, and past 6 months, respectively. Results: YAs in NBP had a lower incidence of internalizing disorders in the past 9 years (7.55% vs. 24.4%; odds ratio [OR] � .26) and 15 years (15.52% vs. 34.62%; OR � .34) and had a slower rate of onset of internalizing symptoms associated with disorder in the past 9 years (hazard ratio [HR] � .28) and 15 years (HR � .46). NBP males had a lower number of substance-related disorders in the past 9 years (d � 0.40), less polydrug (d � 0.55) and other drug use (d � 0.61) in the past year, and fewer substance use problems (d � 0.50) in the past 6 months than LC males. NBP females used more alcohol in the past month (d � 0.44) than LC females. Conclusions: NBP reduced the incidence of internalizing disorders for females and males and substance-related disorders and substance use for males.
Keywords: divorce, prevention, young adults, mental health, substance use
Although the rate of divorce in the United States has stabi- lized or decreased somewhat since the 1970s (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002; U.S. Census Bureau, 2005), it is estimated that
30%–50% of youths in the United States will experience pa- rental divorce in childhood or adolescence (National Center for Health Statistics, 2008). Although most youths do not experi- ence significant adjustment problems after parental divorce (e.g., Amato, 2001; Hetherington, 1999), there is compelling evidence demonstrating that divorce confers increased risk for multiple problems in childhood and adolescence, including mental health problems and disorders (e.g., Amato, 2001; Fer- gusson, Horwood, & Lynskey, 1994), elevations in substance use (e.g., Eitle, 2006; Paxton, Valois, & Drane, 2007), early onset of sexual activity (Hetherington, 1999), and physical health problems (Troxel & Matthews, 2004). For a sizeable subgroup, the negative effects of parental divorce continue into adulthood. Multiple prospective studies with epidemiologic samples have shown that parental divorce is associated with substantial increases in clinical levels of mental health prob- lems, substance abuse, mental health service use, and psychi- atric hospitalization in adulthood (e.g., Afifi, Boman, Fleisher, & Sareen, 2009; Kessler, Davis, & Kendler, 1997). Illustra- tively, in the National Comorbidity Study, Kessler et al. (1997) found that parental divorce was related to elevated rates of multiple mental (odds ratio [OR] range � 1.39 –2.61) and substance-related (OR range � 1.46 –2.38) disorders, control- ling for demographics including age, sex, race, and family socioeconomic status (SES). Similarly, Chase-Lansdale, Cher- lin, and Kiernan (1995) reported a 39% increase in the odds of being above the clinical cut-point on mental health problems at
This article was published Online First June 10, 2013. Sharlene A. Wolchik, Irwin N. Sandler, Jenn-Yun Tein, Nicole E.
Mahrer, Roger E. Millsap, Emily Winslow, Clorinda Vélez, Michele M. Porter, Linda J. Luecken, and Amanda Reed, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University.
Clorinda Vélez is now at the Department of Psychology, Swarthmore College.
Sharlene A. Wolchik, Irwin N. Sandler, and Michele M. Porter declare the following competing financial interest: Partnership in Family Transi- tions—Programs That Work LLC, which trains and supports providers to deliver the New Beginnings Program. This research was funded by National Institute of Mental Health Grants 5R01MH071707, 5P30MH068685, and 5P30MH039246 (Trial Registration: clinicaltrials .gov; Identifier: NCT01407120). We thank Philip G. Poirier and Linda Sandler for their support throughout this project; the mothers and young adults for their participation; Monique Nuno, Toni Genalo, and Michele McConnaughay for their assistance with data collection and management; the interviewers for their commitment and dedication to this project; and Janna LeRoy for her technical assistance. We also thank the group leaders and graduate students for their assistance with implementing the programs.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sharlene A. Wolchik, Prevention Research Center, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 876005, Tempe, AZ 85287-6005. E-mail: sharlene.wolchik@asu.edu
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association 2013, Vol. 81, No. 4, 660 – 673 0022-006X/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0033235
660
mailto:sharlene.wolchik@asu.edu
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033235
age 23 as a function of parental divorce, controlling for pre- divorce emotional problems, school achievement, and SES.
Because of the high prevalence of divorce and its association with multiple problem outcomes, divorce has a considerable im- pact on population rates of youth and adult problems (Scott, Mason, & Chapman, 1999). The population attributable risk (PAR; the proportion of an outcome in the population due to a risk factor or percent of cases that could be prevented by removing the factor or its consequences) provides an important perspective on the public health significance of preventive interventions for this at- risk group. Illustratively, using data from a nationally representa- tive survey of adults (Kessler et al., 1997), and controlling for demographics, prior disorders, and adversities, the PAR of parental di- vorce for drug dependence is 23% (OR � 1.73). Given these data, the development and evaluation of interventions for youths in di- vorced families have clear public health significance.
To date, several randomized experimental trials of programs for either youths or parents from divorced families have shown pos- itive short-term effects on youths’ mental health outcomes (Braver, Griffin, & Cookston, 2005; Forgatch & DeGarmo, 1999; Pedro- Carroll & Cowen, 1985; Stolberg & Garrison, 1985; Wolchik, Sandler, Weiss, & Winslow, 2007; Wolchik et al., 2000, 1993). Further, some studies have documented maintenance of these effects 2–9 years following program completion, with a few dem- onstrating program effects when youths were in mid- to late adolescence (DeGarmo & Forgatch, 2005; DeGarmo, Patterson, & Forgatch, 2004; Forgatch, Patterson, DeGarmo, & Beldavs, 2009; Pedro-Carroll, Sutton, & Wyman, 1999; Stolberg & Mahler, 1994). However, two limitations of these follow-up evaluations are notable. First, none have examined program effects on measures of onset (i.e., incidence) of mental health or substance-related disor- ders subsequent to participation in the intervention. Second, none have examined the impact of prevention programs delivered in childhood on outcomes when the offspring are young adults. Examining the effects of prevention programs on the incidence of mental health and substance-related disorders in young adulthood is an important indicator of long-term prevention effects because it has been found that 75% of lifetime cases of such disorders have their onset by age 24 (Kessler, Berglund, Demler, Jin, & Walters, 2005). Illustratively, several of the mental disorders that are asso- ciated with parental divorce and have significant public health burden, such as depression and substance-related disorders, have a median age of onset (Burke, Burke, Regier, & Rae, 1990) and/or increase or peak in prevalence during this stage (e.g., Kessler et al., 2005). Further, research has consistently shown that young adult- hood is a period when individual trajectories related to psychopa- thology become more firmly established so that having a mental disorder in young adulthood has implications for both concurrent and future functioning (e.g., Arnett & Tanner, 2006). For example, chronic, heavy substance use in young adulthood is associated with current and future mental health and physical health difficulties, criminal behavior, and antisocial personality disorders (Arnett & Tanner, 2006).
Assessment of whether the effects of preventive interventions last into young adulthood is also interesting from a theoretical perspective. Prevention programs are designed to modify social environmental risk and protective factors as well as individual- level competencies and problems. The underlying theory is that changing these risk and protective factors will impact the devel-
opment of problems and disorder at later developmental periods (Coie et al., 1993; National Research Council and Institute of Medicine [NRC/IOM], 2009). Because 75% of mental disorders have their onset by young adulthood, testing the long-term mental health and substance use outcomes in young adulthood of a pre- ventive intervention delivered in childhood provides a stringent test of this theoretical proposition (NRC/IOM, 2009).
This article reports on a 15-year follow-up in young adulthood of a randomized controlled trial that compared a parenting pro- gram for divorced mothers, a dual-component program consisting of the program for mothers and a child coping program, and a literature control condition that were provided when the youths were between ages 9 and 12 (Wolchik et al., 2000). The underlying conceptual model of the program is based on elements from a person– environment transactional framework and a risk and pro- tective factor model. In transactional models, aspects of the social environment affect the development of problems and competen- cies in an individual, which in turn influence the social environ- ment and development of competencies and problems at later developmental stages (e.g., Sameroff, 2000). Derived from epide- miology (Institute of Medicine, 1994), the risk and protective factor model posits that the likelihood of mental health problems is affected by exposure to risk factors and the availability of protec- tive resources. Cummings, Davies, and Campbell’s (2000) “cas- cading pathway model” integrates these two models into a devel- opmental framework. From this perspective, stressful events, such as divorce, can lead to an unfolding of failures to resolve devel- opmental tasks and increase susceptibility to mental health prob- lems and impaired competencies. Parenting is viewed as playing a central role in facilitating children’s successful adaptation, and the skills and resources that are developed in successful resolution of developmental tasks, such as effective coping and academic suc- cess, are viewed as important tools when youths face challenges in subsequent developmental periods.
Prior research has shown (a) positive effects of the parenting program versus the literature control condition on externalizing problems at posttest and 6-month follow-up (Wolchik et al., 2000); (b) positive effects of the parenting program versus the literature control condition and the dual-component condition versus the literature control condition on multiple mental health and sub- stance use outcomes, including mental disorder, at the 6-year follow-up (Wolchik et al., 2002); and (c) no difference in the effects of the parenting program and the dual-component program on mental health outcomes at posttest, 6-month, or 6-year follow-up (Wolchik et al., 2002, 2007, 2000). Mediational analy- ses indicated that improvements in mother– child relationship qual- ity at posttest accounted for program-induced effects on increased coping efficacy and active coping as well as reduced internalizing and externalizing problems for those with high baseline risk for maladjustment at the 6-year follow-up. In addition, improvements in effective discipline at posttest accounted for program-induced effects on reduced externalizing problems at the 6-month follow-up and higher grade point average (GPA) at the 6-year follow-up (Tein, Sandler, MacKinnon, & Wolchik, 2004; Zhou, Sandler, Millsap, Wolchik, & Dawson-McClure, 2008).
The current study examined program effects on the incidence of mental health and substance-related disorders; levels of internal- izing, externalizing, and substance use problems; and frequency of substance use 15 years after participation. Mental health and
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
661FOLLOW-UP OF AN INTERVENTION FOR DIVORCED FAMILIES
substance-related disorders were assessed in two ways. First, the incidence of disorder with onset during the 9-year period since the last follow-up assessment, which occurred 6 years after program completion, was assessed. Developmentally, this measure repre- sents disorders that have their onset during mid-adolescence to young adulthood. Second, the incidence of mental health and substance-related disorders with onset since program entry (i.e., during the last 15 years) was assessed. The 9-year interval was used so that program effects on incidence of disorder would be distinct from previously reported findings at the 6-year follow-up (Wolchik et al., 2002); the 15-year interval was used to assess the overall effects of the program on incidence of mental health and substance-related disorders. It was hypothesized that young adults (YAs) in the mother program or dual-component program would have a lower incidence of disorders than those in the literature control condition. Given that baseline risk moderated program effects at earlier assessments (Wolchik et al., 2002, 2007, 2000), with stronger effects occurring for those at higher risk at program entry, risk was examined as a moderator. Also, given the associ- ation between gender and mental health problems and substance use in young adulthood (e.g., Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2008), gender was examined as a moderator.
Method
Participants
Participants were YAs and their mothers from 240 divorced families who participated in a randomized controlled trial of a preventive intervention 15 years earlier. Of the YAs interviewed, 50% were female. Average age of YAs was 25.6 (SD � 1.2, range � 24 –28). Ethnicity was 88.7% non-Hispanic White, 6.7% Hispanic, 2.1% African American, and 2.5% other. Educational attainment of YAs was as follows: less than high school—2.6%; high school only—22.1%; some college— 45.4%; college graduate—29.4%; post-graduate—3.1%. Of the YAs, 51% were married or living as if married. YA median annual income was in the $30,000 range (choices were $5,000 categories ranging from �$5,000 to �$200,000).
The primary method of recruitment for the trial involved the use of randomly selected court records of divorce decrees that in- volved children and were granted within 2 years of the interven- tion’s start. Eighty percent of the sample was recruited in this way; the remainder responded to media advertisements. Families were first sent a letter about the study, which was followed by a phone call to assess eligibility criteria and invite mothers to participate in an in-home recruitment visit. Eligibility was assessed at pretest as well.
Eligibility criteria were (a) divorced in past 2 years; (b) primary residential parent was female; (c) at least one 9- to 12-year-old child resided (at least 50%) with the mother; (d) neither mother nor any child was in treatment for mental health problems; (e) mother had not remarried, did not plan to remarry during the program, and did not have a live-in boyfriend; (f) custody was expected to remain stable; (g) family resided within an hour drive of program site; (h) mother and child could complete assessments in English; (i) child was not learning disabled or in special education; and (j) if diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, child was taking med- ication. The criterion of maternal residential living arrangements
was selected because at the time of the trial, about 80% of children lived primarily with their mothers after divorce (Cancian & Meyer, 1998). In families with multiple children in the age range, one was randomly selected as the target child for the assessment of program effects to ensure independence of responses. Because of the pre- ventive nature of the program and ethical concerns, families were excluded and referred for treatment if the child scored above 17 on the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1985), en- dorsed an item indicating that she/he wanted to kill herself/himself, or scored above the 97th percentile on the Externalizing Subscale (Child Behavior Checklist [CBCL]; Achenbach, 1991).
The trial was conducted at Arizona State University (ASU) in Tempe, Arizona. The study was approved by the ASU Institutional Review Board. Assessments (i.e., pretest; posttest; and 3-month, 6-month, 6-year, and 15-year follow-ups) were typically con- ducted in the participants’ homes; a few occurred at the university. Interviews for three YAs who lived abroad were conducted via skype; the items in the self-administered questionnaires were read aloud in these cases. The intervention groups were held at the university. Assessments were conducted by trained interviewers who were blind to program condition. Parents and youths older than 18 signed informed consent forms; children signed informed assent forms. Families received $45 compensation for participating in the interviews at pretest, posttest, 3-month, and 6-month follow- ups. At the 6-year follow-up, adolescents and parents each re- ceived $100; at the 15-year follow-up, young adults received $225, and parents received $50.
Sample Size, Power, and Precision
A sample size of 240 was selected so that small to medium effects, the magnitude of the effects found in the pilot study of the mother program (Wolchik et al., 1993), could be detected with power of �.80. Hypothesis tests were conducted using two-tailed tests with � � .05. Assuming the covariates account for 25% of the variance, power to detect small to medium (Cohen’s d � 0.32) effects of mean differences is .80 using analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs). Assuming a 30% base rate of diagnosis in the literature control condition (LC), power is over .90 to detect an OR of 2 with logistic regression. Assuming a .25 control hazard rate, power to detect a risk ratio of .5 is .87 in survival analyses.
Measures
Mental health outcomes. The Diagnostic Interview Schedule IV (DIS; Robin et al., 2000) was administered to YAs to assess internalizing and externalizing disorders. The DIS has adequate reliability and validity (Compton & Cottler, 2000) and has been used in numerous epidemiologic studies of mental disorder (e.g., Grant et al., 2004). The presence of disorder was scored according to the DIS manual. YAs met criteria for a disorder if they endorsed the required symptoms and reported that the symptoms caused impairment (problems) in social, occupational, or other areas of functioning. Disorders were classified as internalizing or external- izing based on the consensus of three doctoral-level clinicians.
As noted earlier, the incidence of disorder was assessed over two periods of time: past 9 years and past 15 years. To assess program effects on disorders that were distinct from those reported at the 6-year follow-up, dichotomous disorder scores were created
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
662 WOLCHIK ET AL.
based on whether criteria for any externalizing disorder, any internalizing disorder, and any internalizing or externalizing dis- order were met with symptom onset in the past 9 years using the standard DIS methods for dating onset (Robin et al., 2000). To ensure that the disorders reported on the DIS with onset in the last 9 years were new disorders rather than continuations of disorders reported at the 6-year follow-up, scores on the Diagnostic Inter- view Schedule for Children (C-DIS; Shaffer, Fisher, Lucas, Dul- can, & Schwab-Stone, 2000) at the 6-year follow-up were also examined to check that disorders dated as having their onset in the past 9 years were not present when youth were interviewed at the 6-year follow-up (Wolchik et al., 2002; C-DIS, algorithm version J). None of the disorders with onset during the last 9 years represented the continuation of a disorder that was reported at the 6-year follow-up. To assess overall effects of the program on incidence of disorder, the same scores as above were calculated with the time frame being since program entry (during the last 15 years).
To assess recent mental health problems, the internalizing prob- lems and externalizing problems subscales of Adult Self-Report (ASR; YA; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2003) and Adult Behavior Checklist (ABCL; mother; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2003) were used. These scales, which assess mental health problems in the past 6 months, have adequate reliability and validity (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2003). Alphas for internalizing problems were .90 and .92 for YA and mother reports, respectively; alphas for external- izing problems were .84 and .92 for YA and mother reports, respectively. Mother and YA scores were standardized and then averaged.
Substance use outcomes. A dichotomous disorder score for presence of any substance-related disorder and a continuous score for number of substance-related disorders with symptom onset in the last 9 years were assessed using the standard DIS method for dating onset. As with mental health disorders, scores on the C-DIS at the 6-year follow-up were also examined to check that disorders dated as having their onset in the past 9 years were not present when youths were interviewed at the 6-year follow-up. None of the substance-related disorders reported on the DIS with onset during the last 9 years represented a continuation of a disorder reported at the 6-year follow-up. Scores for any substance-related disorder and number of substance-related disorders during the last 15 years were assessed using the standard DIS methods for dating onset.
Age of onset of regular drinking was derived from the DIS. Items from the Monitoring the Future Scale (MTF; Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 1993) were used to assess alcohol use and marijuana use in the past month (1 � 0 occasions, 7 � 40 or more) and other drug use (i.e., mean of ratings for 13 drugs other than alcohol and marijuana; 1 � 0 occasions, 7 � 40 or more) and polydrug use (count of different drugs used) in the past year. The MTF has adequate internal consistency reliability and validity (Johnston et al., 1993). To maximize validity, MTF items were self-administered (Gribble, Miller, Rogers, & Turner, 1999). Sub- stance use problems in the past 6 months were assessed by stan- dardizing and averaging mother (ABCL) and YA (ASR) reports. Achenbach and Rescorla (2003) noted that alpha is not applicable for this subscale. Binge drinking was measured using an adaptation of an item from the Quantity and Frequency of Alcohol and Drugs Scale (Sher, Walitzer, Wood, & Brent, 1991) that assessed the frequency of binge drinking in the past year (1 � less than five
times, 2 � more than 5 times but less than once a month, 3 � 1–3 times a month, 4 � 1–2 times a week, 5 � 3–5 times a week, 6 � every day). This item is highly similar to those typically used to define binge drinking behavior (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2011).
Covariates. Baseline risk, internalizing problems, and self- esteem were used as covariates in all analyses. Risk, as defined by (Dawson-McClure, Sandler, Wolchik, and Millsap (2004), was a composite score (i.e., equally-weighted sum of standardized scores) of the following: (a) mother and child reports of child externalizing problems at baseline (the 33-item externalizing sub- scale of the CBCL [Achenbach, 1991; � � .86] for mother report; the 27-item Divorce Adjustment Project Externalizing Scale [Pro- gram for Prevention Research, 1985; � � .87] for child report) and (b) environmental stressors (i.e., a multicomponent measure of interparental conflict, negative life events that occurred to the child, maternal distress, missed visits with the non-custodial father, current per capita annual income). This composite risk measure had been found to predict child mental health problems in the control group of the randomized trial of New Beginnings Program (NBP) at the 6-year follow-up and to moderate the NBP’s effects on internalizing problems, externalizing problems, substance use, mental disorder, and competence at the 6-year follow-up, such that stronger intervention effects were found for youths at higher risk at program entry (Dawson-McClure et al., 2004). Accordingly, we included the risk measure as a covariate and examined whether risk interacted with NBP’s effects at the 15-year follow-up. The inclusion of internalizing problems and self-esteem was based on results of analyses comparing non-respondents and respondents at the 15-year follow-up on 16 baseline variables (Jurs & Glass, 1971), which showed no significant Attrition � Group interactions but two significant main attrition effects. On average, respondents had significantly lower self-esteem (20.45 vs. 21.53; p � .03) and higher levels of internalizing problems (�0.06 vs. �0.30; p � .03) than non-respondents. Pretest internalizing problems was a com- posite of standardized scores on the CBCL Internalizing subscale (� � .87, mother report), the CDI (� � .87, child report), and Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (C. R. Reynolds & Richmond, 1978; � � .90, child report). Pretest self-esteem was assessed with the Self-Perception Profile for Children (Harter, 1985; � � .71, child report).
Intervention and Control Conditions
Intervention conditions. The mother program consisted of 11 group sessions (1.75 hr each) that focused on four family processes that had been shown to predict children’s post-divorce adjustment problems and could potentially be changed by working with moth- ers (Wolchik et al., 2000). The program taught skills to improve mother– child relationship quality and effective discipline, de- crease barriers to father– child contact and reduce children’s ex- posure to interparental conflict. Clinical methods, based on social learning and cognitive behavioral theories, were derived from intervention research (e.g., relationship quality: Guerney, Coufal, & Vogelsong, 1981; discipline: Patterson, 1976; anger manage- ment: Novaco, 1975). The specific skills that were taught in the program are provided in Figure 1. Based on Marlatt and Gordon’s (1985) work, maintenance strategies included leaders providing many opportunities for parents to practice and get feedback on
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
663FOLLOW-UP OF AN INTERVENTION FOR DIVORCED FAMILIES
program skills and to address problems with their use, giving parents handouts on skills and forms to track use of the skills after the program, and leaders attributing change to maternal efforts. The highly structured program used active learning methods, vid- eotaped modeling, and role plays. Homework assignments focused on practicing the program skills. Two individual sessions were held: One focused on ways to increase use of the program skills; the other focused on ways to increase use of the program skills and ways to decrease barriers to father– child contact. There were 18 mother groups (9 in the mother program condition and 9 in the dual-component condition); average group size was 9 (range � 8 –10).
In the dual-component program, mothers participated in the mother program and children participated concurrently in an 11- session group program. The child program targeted active coping, avoidant coping, threat appraisals of divorce stressors, and mother– child relationship quality. The change strategies, based on social learning and social cognitive theory, were derived from intervention research (e.g., coping and appraisals: Pedro-Carroll & Cowen, 1985; relationship quality: Guerney et al., 1981). The dual-component program included one conjoint group session in which mothers and children practiced listening/communication skills. The specific skills that were taught in the program are provided in Figure 2. Didactic presentations, videotapes, leader modeling, role plays, and engaging games were used to teach the program skills. Homework involved practicing the program skills. There were nine child groups with an average group size of 9 (range � 9 –10). For more information about the programs, see Wolchik et al. (2007, 2000).
Each group was led by two master’s-level clinicians (13 leaders for mother groups; 9 for child groups). The leaders used highly detailed session manuals to deliver the groups. Extensive training (30 hr prior to the start of the program and 1.5 hr per week during delivery) and weekly supervision (1.5 hr per week) were provided by doctoral-level clinicians. Prior to delivery of each session, leaders were required to score 90% on a quiz of the content of the session. Average scores were 97% (SD � 3%) and 98% (SD � 1%) for leaders in the mother and child groups, respectively.
Control condition. In the literature control condition (LC), mothers and children received three books each about children’s divorce adjustment and a syllabus to guide their reading. Books were mailed to families at 1-month intervals.
Random Assignment
After completion of the pretest, families were randomly as- signed to one of three conditions: mother, dual-component, or LC. Randomization was conducted by project staff other than the investigators and interviewers. A computer-generated algorithm developed by a researcher not involved in the trial was used to assign families to condition. Randomization was conducted within the evening availability pool (Tuesday vs. Thursday) because some families could attend on only one of the two nights the groups were offered.
Masking
Interviewers were given no information about families’ program condition. To reduce the likelihood that interviewers would learn about the condition, at the beginning of the interview, participants were asked not to discuss their program. After the assessment was complete, interviewers completed a question about knowledge of the participant’s intervention condition. At the 15-year follow-up,
Mother-Child Relationship
Quality
• Family Fun Time • One-on-one Time • Catch’em being good • Listening Skills
Effective Discipline
• Set clear, consistent & appropriate expectations
• Monitor misbehavior • Implement change plan • Use consequences
consistently
Interparental Conflict
• Self talk to keep children out of conflict
• Anger management • Talk to adults when angry
at ex-spouse • Respectful requests to
prevent others from saying negative things about ex- spouse to children
Father-child Contact
• Education about importance of child’s relationship with father
• Reduction of obstacles to visitations
Figure 1. Risk and protective factors and change strategies mother pro- gram.
• Problem solving training
• Positive cognitive restructuring
• Feeling awareness
• Relaxation
• Information about divorce
• Information about divorce
• Positive reframing
Mother-Child Relationship
Quality
Active Coping
Avoidant Coping
Negative Appraisals
• Communication Skills
Figure 2. Risk and protective factors and change strategies child pro- gram.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
664 WOLCHIK ET AL.
95% (mother interviewers) and 96% (YA interviewers) were blind to assignment.
Data Analytic Approach
Given the lack of differences between the mother and dual- component programs in prior evaluations (Wolchik et al., 2002, 2007, 2000), preliminary analyses comparing these two conditions on all outcome measures at the 15-year follow-up were conducted using logistic regression for dichotomous outcome variables and ANCOVAs for continuous outcomes. The two conditions differed on 4% of the comparisons. Because fewer differences than would be expected by chance were found, these conditions were combined and labeled the New Beginnings Program (NBP). Inter- vention effects were evaluated by comparing the NBP and LC.
Baseline equivalence of the NBP and LC on demographic and child functioning variables was tested using �2 (categorical) or t statistics (continuous). Attrition analyses (Jurs & Glass, 1971; analyses of variance [continuous]; �2 test or logistic regression [dichotomous]) were conducted to examine whether attrition rates differed across condition and whether attrition or Attrition � Intervention effects were related to baseline demographic or child functioning variables.
Intervention effects were examined with logistic regression (di- chotomous), ANCOVAs (continuous), and Cox proportional haz- ards survival analysis (i.e., onset of drinking, onset of internalizing symptoms for those who developed an internalizing disorder, onset of externalizing symptoms for those who developed an external- izing disorder), controlling for baseline risk. For each outcome, differential program effects were first examined across baseline risk and YA gender. If an interaction were significant, tests of simple effects were conducted. If an interaction were not signifi- cant, the analysis was re-run without the interaction term.
An intent-to-treat approach with the original 240 families was employed in all analyses except those that used DIS disorder scores (i.e., presence of internalizing disorder, presence of exter- nalizing disorder, presence of an internalizing or externalizing disorder, presence of substance-related disorder, and number of substance-related disorders) and onset of regular drinking. In the analyses of DIS scores in the last 9 years (since the last follow-up), YAs who reported a disorder with any broadband symptom onset more than 9 years earlier (i.e., internalizing symptom, externaliz- ing symptom, substance use symptom), as assessed on the DIS, or who met criteria for an internalizing, externalizing, or substance- use disorder on the C-DISC at the 6-year follow-up, were not included (internalizing disorder [43 excluded]; externalizing dis- order [14 excluded]; substance-related disorder and number of substance-related disorders [29 excluded]). In the analyses of DIS scores since the program began (i.e., last 15 years), YAs who reported a disorder on the DIS with symptom onset prior to the beginning of the program were excluded (substance use [3 ex- cluded]; internalizing disorders [26 excluded]; externalizing dis- orders [4 excluded]). In the analyses of onset of regular drinking, YAs who reported that they started drinking before the program began were excluded (4 excluded).
The rates of missing data for study variables and covariates ranged from 0% to 23% (Mdn � 19%). Because missingness was related to baseline self-esteem and internalizing problems, missing at random (MAR) was assumed. Mplus software (Muthén &
Muthén, 1998 –2010) was employed for analyzing continuous variables, using full-information maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data. Due to the inability of Mplus to handle missing data with categorical or count variables, SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute, 2010)—incorporating the multiple imputation procedure for missing data—was used for analyzing dichotomous variables and time of onset (Ake & Carpenter, 2002). Both methods are based on expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm of handling missing data and are comparable in performance (Schafer & Gra- ham, 2002).
Because the intervention was delivered in a group format, NBP participants were nested within group. The intra-class correlations (ICCs) for binary variables were computed using Guo and Zhao’s (2000) procedure. ICCs across all of the study variables for the intervention group were very low with a mean of 0.02 (SD � 0.03).
To adjust for multiple tests, the false discovery rate (Benjamini & Hochberg, 2000), which controls for the expected proportion of false positives among all significant hypotheses, was applied to the main and interaction effects separately for mental health and substance use outcomes. We interpreted effects as reliable if the false discovery rate (FDR) was � 10% and the observed p value met Benjamini–Hochberg’s adaptive FDR criterion (Benjamini & Hochberg, 2000).
Results
Participant Flow
Figure 3 depicts the screening and enrollment process. As shown in Figure 3, of the 1,331 families contacted by phone, 709 (53%) did not meet eligibility criteria, 218 (16%) did not complete the recruitment visit, 112 (8%) declined participation, 26 (2%) did not complete the pretest, 49 (4%) were ineligible at pretest, and 26 (2%) terminated participation between pretest and random assign- ment to condition, which occurred after the pretest. Two hundred forty families (38% of those that were eligible) were randomly assigned to the mother program (n � 81), dual-component pro- gram (n � 83), or LC (n � 76). In accord with intent-to-treat designs, all participants who were randomly assigned to condition were included in the analyses.
Families were recruited for participation in the randomized trial from 3/1992 to 12/1993. Data for this report are from the 15-year follow-up (4/2007–1/2009), which occurred an average of 15.3 years (SD � 0.10) after the posttest. At the 15-year follow-up, data were collected from 89.6% of the families (194 YAs; 204 of the mothers) randomly assigned to condition. Rate of attrition at 15-year follow-up did not differ significantly across the NBP condition (9.8%) and the LC condition (11.8%), �2(1, N � 240) � 0.24, p � .65. Length of follow-up did not differ across condition (p � .36).
Treatment Integrity
Using lists of session content areas (number of areas ranged from 7 to 11), independent observers rated videotapes for the degree of completion of each content area. Inter-rater reliability, assessed for a randomly selected 20% of the sessions, averaged 98%. The average rate of completion of session activities was high
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
665FOLLOW-UP OF AN INTERVENTION FOR DIVORCED FAMILIES
(2.86 [SD � 0.39] for the mother groups and 3.00 [SD � 0.02] for the child groups; 1 � not at all, 3 � completed).
Mothers attended an average of 77% (M � 10.2, SD � 3.56) of the 13 sessions (11 group, 2 individual). Children attended an average of 78% (M � 8.55, SD � 2.97) of the 11 group sessions. Attendance in the mother program did not differ significantly for the mother program (M � 9.72, SD � 3.53) and dual-component program (M � 10.33, SD � 3.44) conditions (p � .28). LC participants reported reading about half the books (mothers: 3.04 [SD � 0.92]; children: 3.22 [SD � 1.01]; 1 � not at all, 5 � whole).
Preliminary Analyses
Sample representativeness was assessed by comparing the base- line demographics and child functioning variables in Table 1 across families assigned to condition (N � 240) and eligible families that refused to participate but agreed to complete the
pretest (N � 62). Families assigned to condition reported signifi- cantly higher incomes (t � 2.54, p � .01) and maternal education (t � 2.73, p � .01). There were no significant differences across the NBP and LC on demographic variables and child functioning at baseline (see Table 1).
Analyses of Intervention Effects
Table 2 presents the analyses of program main effects and Program � Gender interaction effects. None of the Program � Baseline Risk interaction effects had a FDR � .10. This table presents program effects on mental health and substance-related abuse disorders with onset in the past 9 years. Thus, these results are not redundant with previously reported findings on program effects on disorder at the 6-year follow-up (Wolchik et al., 2002).
Mental health outcomes within past 9 years. There were two significant main effects that had a FDR � .10 and met the adaptive FDR criterion. A smaller percentage of YAs in the NBP
Lost to follow-up: Refused (n= 14)
Lost to follow-up: Refused (n= 6) Unable to Locate (n = 2)
Assessed for eligibility (n=1331)
Excluded (n= 1091) ♦ Not meeting inclusion criteria (n=709) ♦ No recruitment visit (n=218) ♦ Declined to participate (n= 112) ♦ No pretest (n=26) ♦ Terminated between pre-test and
assignment (n= 26)
Lost to follow-up: Refused (n=14), Unable to reach/locate (n=13), Deceased (n=3) Data collected: (n = 134)
Lost to follow-up: Refused (n= 4)
Assigned to intervention (MP/ MPCP) (n=164) ♦ Received assigned intervention (n= 164) ♦ Did not receive allocated intervention (n= 0)
Lost to follow-up (n = 0)
Assigned to control (n=76) ♦ Received control condition (n=76) ♦ Did not receive allocated intervention (n= 0)
Lost to follow-up: Refused (n=5), Unable to reach/locate (n=11) Data collected: (n = 60)
Wave 1 (Pretest)
Wave 6 (15-year)
Wave 2 (Posttest)
Randomized (n= 240)
Data Analyzed: (n=164) Data Analyzed: (n=76)
Analysis
Wave 5 (6-year)
Lost to follow-up: Refused (n= 3) Lost to follow-up: Refused (n = 1)
Wave 3 (3-mo)
Lost to follow-up: Refused (n= 4) Lost to follow-up: Refused (n = 2)
Wave 4 (6-mo)
Figure 3. Participant flow. MP � mother program; MPCP � mother program and child program.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
666 WOLCHIK ET AL.
than YAs in the LC developed an internalizing disorder in the last 9 years (7.55% vs. 24.40%; p � .007; OR � .26; 95% CI [.09, .72]; absolute risk reduction � 16.85%; 95% CI [1%, 34%]). Also, a smaller percentage of YAs in the NBP than in LC developed either an internalizing disorder or an externalizing disorder (8.00% vs. 19.5%; p � .04; OR � .33; 95% CI [.10, .94]; absolute risk reduction � 11.50%; 95% CI [7%, 16%]). Table 3 shows the percentage of YAs in the NBP and LC conditions who met diagnostic criteria for specific disorders. Given the limited number of cases for most disorders, we were able to analyze the data for major depression only. The NBP significantly reduced the onset of major depression relative to the LC, �2(1) � 3.85, p � .04.
The results of the survival analysis show that, compared to YAs in the LC, the rate of onset of internalizing symptoms during the past 9 years for YAs in the NBP who developed an internalizing disorder decreased by 72% (hazard ratio [HR] � .28; 95% CI [.10, .74]; p � .01). Figure 4 shows the hazard functions for the NBP and LC conditions.
There were no significant program effects on internalizing or externalizing problems in the past 6 months. Analyses conducted separately for mother and YA report of internalizing problems and externalizing problems (i.e., ABCL/ASR) in the past 6 months showed a similar pattern of findings (i.e., program effects were non-significant). None of the program by gender interaction effects was significant.
Substance use outcomes within the past 9 years. There were six significant Program � Gender effects that had a FDR � .10 and met the adaptive FDR criterion. Post hoc analyses within gender found that males in the NBP had a lower number of substance-related disorders in the past 9 years (adjusted Ms � �0.06 vs. 0.29; p � .05; Cohen’s d � 0.40) than males in the LC. Also, males in the NBP reported less polydrug use (adjusted Ms � 2.88 vs. 3.80; p � .05; Cohen’s d � 0.55) and other drug use in the past year (adjusted Ms � 1.10 vs. 1.24; p � .03; Cohen’s d � 0.61) and fewer substance use problems (composite of ABCL/ASR scores) in the last 6 months (adjusted Ms � 54.28 vs. 56.99; p � .02; Cohen’s d � 0.50) than those in the LC. Analyses conducted separately for mother and YA reports of substance use problems in the last 6 months (i.e., ABCL/ASR) showed a similar pattern of effects as the analysis that used the composite score; the Program � Gender interaction was marginally significant for YA report and significant for mother report. The direction of the simple effects tests was consistent with that for the composite variable. The Program � Gender interaction for substance-related disorder was significant but the simple effects tests comparing NBP and LC for males and females did not reach p � .05. Unexpectedly, females in the NBP reported more alcohol use in the past month than those in the LC (adjusted Ms � 3.86 vs. 3.13; p � .02; Cohen’s d � 0.44). The difference across condition on this variable for males was non-significant.
Table 1 Demographics and Child Functioning Variables at Baseline
Demographic/variable Control NBP Difference
Demographics Male youths, No. (%) 37 (48.68%) 86 (52.44%) p � .59 Youth mean age, years (SD) 10.27 (1.06) 10.38 (1.15) p � .59 Sole maternal legal custody, No. (%) 48 (63.16%) 104 (63.41%) p � .96 Mother
Ethnicity, No. (%) p � .57 White, non-Hispanic 66 (88.41%) 145 (88.68%) Hispanic 8 (10.53%) 10 (6.10%) Black 1 (1.32%) 3 (1.83%) Asian American/Pacific Islanders 0 (0%) 3 (0.07%) Other 1 (1.67%) 3 (1.83%)
Education,a years (SD) 4.93 (1.10) 5.04 (1.20) p � .53 Age, years (SD) 36.47 (4.63) 37.74 (4.85) p � .06 Gross income, U.S. $ (SD) 5.68 (2.61) 5.88 (3.26) p � .65
Father Ethnicity, No. (%) p � .81
White, non-Hispanic 68 (90%) 139 (84.33%) Hispanic 5 (6.58%) 14 (8.54%) Black 2 (2.63%) 5 (3.05%) Asian American/Pacific Islanders 0 (0%) 2 (1.22%) Other 1 (1.32%) 5 (3.05%)
Education, years (SD) 4.62 (1.43) 4.62 (1.56) p � .99 Age, years (SD) 38.82 (5.39) 40.04 (5.74) p � .12
Father (ex-spouse) remarried,b No. (%) 12 (15.79%) 22 (13.41%) p � .64 Time since separation, months (SD) 27.91 (18.86) 26.41 (16.45) p � .53 Time since divorce, months (SD) 12.43 (6.39) 12.12 (6.43) p � .73
Child functioning variables Internalizing problems—Mother � child report, M (SD) �0.050 (0.71) 0.023 (0.78) p � .49 Externalizing problems—Mother � child Report, M (SD) �0.197 (0.70) �0.001 (0.91) p � .10 Self-esteem—Child report, M (SD) 20.82 (2.80) 21.06 (6.75) p � .76
Note. NBP � New Beginnings Program. a Education was defined as 1 � elementary, 2 � some high school, 3 � high school graduate, 4 � technical school, 5 � some college, 6 � college graduate, 7 � graduate school. b Remarriage of mother was an exclusion criterion.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
667FOLLOW-UP OF AN INTERVENTION FOR DIVORCED FAMILIES
T ab
le 2
N B
P In
te rv
en ti
o n
E ff
ec ts
a t
1 5 -Y
ea r
F o ll
o w
-U p
A ct
ua l
pr op
or ti
on (S
D )/
A ct
ua l
m ea
ns (S
D )a
M ai
n ef
fe ct
P ro
gr am
� G
en de
r ef
fe ct
N B
P C
on tr
ol A
dj us
te d
re gr
es si
on w
ei gh
tb [9
5% C
I] p
va lu
e A
dj us
te d
re gr
es si
on w
ei gh
t [9
5% C
I] p
va lu
e M
ea su
re (n
� 16
4) (n
� 76
) (O
R )
(F D
R p
va lu
e) (C
oh en
’s d )c
(F D
R p
va lu
e)
M en
ta l
he al
th pr
ob le
m s
C om
po si
te A
B C
L /A
S R
in te
rn al
iz in
g t
sc or
e (M
) 55
.0 2
(4 .8
4) 55
.4 8
(5 .7
1) �
.9 1
[� 2.
38 ,0
.5 6]
.2 3
(. 28
) �
1. 80
[� 4.
75 ,1
.1 5]
.2 3
(. 53
) C
om po
si te
A B
C L
/A S
R ex
te rn
al iz
in g
t sc
or e
(M )
49 .1
5 (9
.1 1)
49 .0
0 (9
.0 4)
� .3
6 [�
2. 83
,2 .1
1] .7
8 (.
78 )
� 1.
57 [�
6. 53
,3 .3
9] .5
3 (.
53 )
In te
rn al
iz in
g di
so rd
er pa
st 9
ye ar
s (%
)d 4.
55 %
(2 .6
9) 16
.7 %
(3 .2
5) �
1. 36
[� 2.
41 ,�
0. 32
] .0
07 (.
03 )
.7 1
[� 1.
29 ,2
.7 1]
.3 7
(. 53
) (O
R �
.2 6)
E xt
er na
li zi
ng di
so rd
er pa
st 9
ye ar
s (%
)d 0%
(0 )
3. 64
% (.
04 )
� .8
6 [�
0. 96
,0 .3
1] .1
2 (.
27 )
� .7
4 [�
2. 78
,1 .2
9] .4
3 (.
53 )
In te
rn al
iz in
g or
ex te
rn al
iz in
g di
so rd
er pa
st 9
ye ar
s (%
)d 8.
0% (2
.7 1)
19 .5
% (6
.1 9)
� 1.
19 [�
2. 33
,� 0.
06 ]
.0 4
(. 09
) �
1. 19
[� 3.
41 ,1
.0 4]
.3 0
(. 53
) (O
R �
.3 0)
S ub
st an
ce us
e A
ge st
ar te
d re
gu la
r dr
in ki
ng (M
) 18
.3 6
(2 .3
0) 18
.8 4
(2 .6
2) �
.4 7
[� 1.
31 ,0
.3 6]
.1 7
(. 49
) 1.
94 [0
.2 7,
3. 61
] .2
2 (.
28 )
B in
ge dr
in ki
ng pa
st ye
ar (M
) 1.
10 (1
.1 4)
.9 3
(1 .2
3) .1
6 [�
0. 14
,0 .4
6] .2
9 (.
49 )
� .6
4 [�
1. 44
,0 .1
7] .1
2 (.
15 )
A lc
oh ol
us e
pa st
m on
th (M
) 3.
22 (1
.5 2)
2. 98
(1 .7
0) .2
3 [�
0. 26
,0 .7
2] .3
5 (.
57 )
� 1.
12 [�
2. 06
,� 0.
18 ]
.0 2
(. 08
) (d
� 0.
44 [f
em al
e] )
M ar
ij ua
na us
e pa
st m
on th
(M )
1. 66
(1 .5
3) 1.
98 (1
.8 8)
.0 0
[� 0.
47 ,0
.4 7]
.9 9
(. 99
) �
.2 7
[� 1.
17 ,0
.6 4]
.5 7
(. 64
) P
ol yd
ru g
us e
pa st
ye ar
(M )
1. 58
(1 .2
3) 1.
98 (1
.8 8)
� .4
4 [�
0. 88
,0 .0
0] .0
5 (.
23 )
� .8
8 [�
1. 76
,0 .0
1] .0
5 (.
08 )
(d �
0. 55
[m al
e] )
O th
er dr
ug us
e pa
st ye
ar (M
) 1.
05 (.
15 )
1. 11
(. 23
) �
.0 6
[� 0.
11 ,�
0. 00
] .0
4 (.
23 )
� .1
2 [�
0. 23
,� 0.
02 ]
.0 3
(. 08
) (d
� 0.
61 [m
al e]
) C
om po
si te
A B
C L
/A S
R su
bs ta
nc e
us e
pr ob
le m
s t
sc or
e (M
) 55
.4 3
(5 .1
8) 55
.7 0
(4 .9
6) �
.9 5
[� 2.
45 ,0
.5 6]
.2 2
(. 49
) �
3. 51
[� 6.
49 ,�
0. 53
] .0
2 (.
08 )
(d �
0. 50
[m al
e] )
S ub
st an
ce us
e di
so rd
er pa
st 9
ye ar
s (%
)d 18
.6 %
(4 .1
3) 15
.3 8%
(2 .6
0) .0
8 [�
0. 78
,0 .9
5] .8
2 (.
92 )
� 2.
65 [�
4. 97
,� 0.
33 ]
.0 5
(. 08
) N
o. of
su bs
ta nc
e us
e di
so rd
er s
pa st
9 ye
ar s
(M )d
.2 0
(. 50
) .3
2 (1
.3 1)
� .1
1 [�
0. 34
,0 .1
3] .3
8 (.
57 )
� .4
8 [�
0. 94
,� 0.
01 ]
.0 5
(. 08
) (d
� 0.
40 [m
al e]
)
N o te
. N
B P
� N
ew B
eg in
ni ng
s P
ro gr
am ;
C I
� co
nf id
en ce
in te
rv al
; O
R �
od ds
ra ti
o; F
D R
� fa
ls e
di sc
ov er
y ra
te ;
A B
C L
� A
du lt
B eh
av io
r C
he ck
li st
; A
S R
� A
du lt
S el
f- R
ep or
t. a
T he
co nf
id en
ce in
te rv
al s
fo r
th e
ac tu
al pr
op or
ti on
s (b
in ar
y va
ri ab
le s)
an d
m ea
ns (c
on ti
nu ou
s va
ri ab
le s)
di d
no t
co nt
ro l
fo r
th e
ba se
li ne
co va
ri at
e no
r re
fl ec
t th
e F
IM L
es ti
m at
e of
th e
in te
rv en
ti on
ef fe
ct .
b T
he in
te rv
en ti
on co
nd it
io n
w as
co de
d as
0 (c
on tr
ol )
ve rs
us 1
(N B
P ).
T hu
s, th
e ad
ju st
ed re
gr es
si on
w ei
gh t
fo r
th e
m ai
n ef
fe ct
is th
e ad
ju st
ed m
ea n
di ff
er en
ce be
tw ee
n th
e tw
o co
nd it
io ns
. c
C oh
en ’s
d w
as re
po rt
ed on
ly fo
r fi
nd in
gs w
it h
F D
R p
� .1
0. d
O nl
y yo
un g
ad ul
ts w
ho re
po rt
ed a
di so
rd er
w it
h br
oa db
an d
sy m
pt om
on se
t af
te r
th e
6- ye
ar fo
ll ow
-u p
as se
ss m
en t
w er
e in
cl ud
ed in
th es
e an
al ys
es (N
� 19
7 in
te rn
al iz
in g
di so
rd er
; N
� 22
6 fo
r ex
te rn
al iz
in g
di so
rd er
; N
� 21
1 fo
r su
bs ta
nc e-
re la
te d
di so
rd er
an d
nu m
be r
of su
bs ta
nc e-
re la
te d
di so
rd er
s) .
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
668 WOLCHIK ET AL.
Mental health and substance-related disorder since program entry (past 15 years). To examine program effects on disorders that occurred any time after the program began rather than on disorders with onset between the 6-year and 15-year follow-up, additional analyses were conducted on the DIS variables. The results were similar to those for onset of disorder in the past 9 years. A smaller percentage of YAs in the NBP than YAs in the LC developed an internalizing disorder in the last 15 years (15.52% vs. 34.62%; p � .006; OR � .34; 95% CI [.16, .73]; absolute risk reduction � 19.10%; 95% CI [3%, 35%]). In addition, a smaller percentage of YAs in the NBP than in the LC developed either an internalizing disorder or an externalizing disorder in the last 15 years (25.20% vs. 38.89%; p � .05; OR � .50; 95% CI [.24, .99]; absolute risk reduction � 13.69%; 95% CI [4%, 23%]).The Pro- gram � Gender interaction on number of substance-related disor- ders was marginally significant (p � .08).
Table 3 presents the percentages of YAs who met criteria for specific disorders in the NBP and LC conditions. As can be seen, the program effect on internalizing disorders is primarily due to the effect to reduce the incidence of major depressive disorders.
The results of the survival analysis showed that, compared to YAs in the LC, the rate of onset of internalizing symptoms for YAs in the NBP who developed an internalizing disorder in the past 15 years decreased by 54% (HR � .46; 95% CI [.24, .96]; p � .01). Figure 4 shows the hazard functions across intervention conditions since the beginning of the program.
Discussion
This is the first study to examine the effects of a preventive intervention for divorced families provided in childhood on the incidence of mental health and substance-related disorders and problems in young adulthood. The internal validity of these find- ings is enhanced by the randomized design, very high levels of fidelity of implementation of the program, high level of retention of participants in the 15-year follow-up, use of an intent-to-treat data analysis approach and use of the false discovery method to protect against alpha inflation.
The results indicated that the NBP reduced the likelihood of onset of an internalizing disorder in the 9-year period between the previous and current follow-up which spanned from mid-to-late adolescence to young adulthood, and slowed the rate at which an internalizing disorder developed. Further, for males, the program reduced the number of substance-related disorders between ado- lescence and young adulthood and several aspects of substance use, including frequency of use of several types of substances during the last year and substance use problems in the last 6 months. However, for females, program participation led to an increase on one of the nine measures of substance use, alcohol use in the last month.
The analyses showed significant program effects for both males and females on the incidence and rate of onset of internalizing disorders. Three times more young adults in the LC experienced
Table 3 Percentage of Young Adults (YAs) Meeting Criteria for Disorders
NBP—Past 9 years LC—Past 9 years NBP—Past 15 years LC—Past 15 years Variable % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
Internalizing Major depressive episodea 16.5 (15) 24.4 (10) 18.4 (23) 28.8 (17) Bipolar/manic episode 0 (0) 2.3 (1) 1.5 (2) 3.3 (2) Panic disorder 0.8 (1) 0 (0) 1.5 (2) 0 (0) Generalized anxiety disorder 4.0 (4) 0 (0) 4.5 (6) 0 (0) OCD (compulsive) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.8 (1) 1.7 (1) Specific phobia 0 (0) 3.8 (2) 0.8 (1) 5.5 (3) Social phobia 0 (0) 0 (0) 1.5 (2) 3.4 (2) PTSD 0 (0) 12.5 (5) 0.8 (1) 11.9 (7) Eating disorder 0 (0) 0 (0) 1.6 (2) 0 (0)
Externalizing Conduct disorder 0 (0) 0 (0) 3.4 (4) 1.9 (1) Attention deficit disorder 0 (0) 5.0 (2) 0 (0) 3.5 (2) Antisocial personality disorder 0 (0) 0 (0) 3.7 (5) 6.7 (4)
Substance useb
Nicotine 5.2 (6) 7.5 (4) 6.7 (9) 6.7 (4) Alcohol 22.4 (24) 17.6 (9) 23.7 (31) 23.3 (14) Drug 5.7 (6) 5.8 (3) 9.9 (13) 6.7 (4)
Note. 194 YAs who participated in Wave 6 (15-year follow-up) reported on the disorders presented in this table. YAs with onset of symptoms associated with the specific disorder (e.g., depressive symptoms) prior to the program were excluded from the “past 15 years” calculations, and YAs with onset of symptoms associated with the specific disorder prior to Wave 5 (6-year follow-up) were excluded from the “past 9 years” calculations. Therefore, these percentages are based on a variable number of participants across disorders and across the two follow-up periods. NBP � New Beginnings Program; LC � literature control condition; OCD � obsessive compulsive disorder; PTSD � posttraumatic stress disorder. a For ease of presentation, several diagnostic categories were combined. Major depressive episode includes major depressive disorder single and recurrent episode; bipolar/manic episode includes manic episode, hypomania, and bipolar I and II (single and recurrent); eating disorder includes anorexia and bulimia; nicotine includes nicotine withdrawal and dependence; alcohol includes alcohol withdrawal, dependence, and abuse; and drug includes drug withdrawal, dependence, and abuse. b A Program � Gender effect occurred for substance use disorder. Males in the NBP had fewer substance abuse disorders than those in the LC.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
669FOLLOW-UP OF AN INTERVENTION FOR DIVORCED FAMILIES
the onset of an internalizing disorder since the follow-up in ado- lescence than those in the NBP (24.40% vs. 7.55%), with most of the disorders being major depression. In addition, since the follow-up in adolescence, for those who developed an internalizing disorder, the rate of developing an internalizing disorders in the LC was about three and half times faster (earlier onset) than in the NBP (HR � .28). Further, using the interval from program entry to the current follow-up, about two times more young adults in the LC than in NBP experienced the onset of an internalizing disorder (34.62% vs. 15.52%), and these disorders developed about two times faster for those in the LC versus NBP condition (HR � .46). It is important to note that most of the effect on internalizing disorder appears to be accounted for by a reduction in major depression (i.e., 18.4% NBP vs. 28.8% LC for onset since program initiation). There was no evidence that the intervention produced effects on anxiety disorders. It is notable that the rate of depression in the NBP group is similar to the lifetime prevalence of major depression reported in a nationally representative sample of 19- to 29-year-olds (15.4%; Kessler et al., 2005), while the rate of de- pression is substantially higher in the LC group.
These findings augment the limited research on the long-term effects of prevention programs provided in childhood. Previous research has found preventive effects on outcomes such as felony arrests, incarceration, high risk sexual behaviors, marijuana use, and depressive symptoms in adulthood (Campbell, Ramey, Pung- ello, Sparling, & Miller-Johnson, 2002; Lonczak, Abbott, Hawk- ins, Kosterman, & Catalano, 2002; A. J. Reynolds et al., 2007; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997). To our knowledge, this is the first study to find long-term program effects on the incidence of major depression from mid-to-late adolescence to young adulthood. Pre- venting the onset of mental disorders at this point in development is important because young adulthood is a time when key choices
are made in multiple life spheres (Schulenberg, Sameroff, & Cicchetti, 2004) and mental health problems during this period can have serious, long-lasting consequences (Arnett & Tanner, 2006).
The enduring impact of the NBP is noteworthy given its length (11 weeks). Most studies that have assessed young adults who were involved in preventive programs during childhood (e.g., Lonczak et al., 2002; A. J. Reynolds et al., 2007; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997) have evaluated much lengthier programs (e.g., from 9 months to 6 years). Although Sandler, Schoenfelder, Wol- chik, and MacKinnon’s (2011) review of 46 parenting-focused prevention programs found evidence of effects lasting a year or longer, the maintenance of program effects into adulthood has been examined for very few programs. The current results under- score the need to conduct long-term follow-ups to test whether other relatively brief, parenting-focused preventive interventions have effects that last into adulthood.
In contrast to the findings at the 6-year follow-up, which showed positive program effects on frequency of substance use for males and females who were at high risk of developing problems at program entry (Wolchik et al., 2002), in the current follow-up, positive program effects occurred for males only. This interactive effect may be related to the higher risk for males to develop substance use problems in young adulthood (Chilcoat & Breslau, 1996; Johnston et al., 2008). Of the program effects on substance use measures, the one with the clearest clinical significance is the reduction in the number of substance-related disorders with onset between mid-to-late adolescence and young adulthood. These find- ings are encouraging, given estimates that the economic cost of substance abuse exceed $484 billion per year and more than 2 million Americans die each year due to substance use (Hanson & Li, 2003). Additional follow-up of this sample is needed to assess whether the program effects on substance use and substance- related disorders for males are sustained later in development.
Although females in the NBP reported using more alcohol in the last month than those in the LC, the significance of this finding is mitigated by the level of drinking reported in both the NBP and LC groups. Females in both the NBP and LC reported drinking be- tween three and five drinks in the past month, an amount not likely to have clinical significance. Nevertheless, future follow-ups should assess whether this unexpected effect persists and whether program participation predicts problematic substance use out- comes later in development for females.
Preliminary analyses showed very few differences between the two active conditions and thus they were combined and compared to the LC. The absence of long-term additive effects of the child coping component is consistent with the findings at earlier assess- ments (Wolchik et al., 2002, 2007, 2000). It is important to note that this study examined the additive effects of the child program and did not compare the child program to a control condition. Other researchers have found positive effects for child-focused interventions up to 2 years after participation (e.g., Pedro-Carroll et al., 1999), so the lack of additive effects of the child coping component in the current study should not be interpreted to indi- cate that coping programs are ineffective for this population. The most obvious explanation of the lack of an additive effect in the current study is related to the absence of a differential program effect at posttest on the central target of this component, coping (Wolchik et al., 2000). Possible explanations for the lack of effects on coping include an overreliance on didactic presentation and/or
Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of onset of symptoms for an internal- izing disorder since program entry. For the New Beginnings Program condition (NBP), there was no onset of symptoms for new cases of internalizing disorder after 12 years from program entry; for the literature control condition (LC), there was no onset of symptoms for new cases of internalizing disorder after 13 years from program entry. The shaded gray area represents time since the 6-year follow-up and shows onset of a new internalizing disorder during this time period.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
670 WOLCHIK ET AL.
insufficient opportunity for children to practice the more adaptive coping efforts. Alternatively, given Stolberg and Mahler’s (1994) findings that adding a parent component to a child coping program did not result in additive effects, it is possible that intervening with either the parent or child is sufficient to reduce the risks associated with divorce. Although the long-term effects of child-focused programs have not been assessed, offering child-focused as well as parent-focused programs could be important, particularly for fam- ilies in which the parents do not have the time for or interest in participating in a program.
The public health implications of findings on the prevention of major depression and substance-related disorders are encouraging. However, caution is recommended in interpreting the practical implications of the current findings. This university-based trial included extensive supervision and intensive monitoring of imple- mentation. Research is needed to demonstrate that similar effects can be achieved when the program is implemented under real- world conditions as a community service. Also, research is needed to address several limitations of this study. First, the sample was primarily non-Hispanic White. Research using ethnically diverse samples is vital given that by 2023, ethnic minorities will comprise more than half of U.S. youths (America’s Children, 2011). Second, the sample consisted of families in which children lived primarily with their mothers, the living arrangement that characterized the majority of divorced families when the trial was conducted. Given that fathers now play a greater role in post-divorce parenting (Fabricius, Braver, Diaz, & Velez, 2010), it is important to assess the program effects when delivered to fathers, as well as to mothers who are not primary residential parents. Third, few fam- ilies in the sample lived at or below the poverty level. Research is needed to evaluate the generalizability of this intervention across such high-risk groups. Fourth, using a randomized controlled trial, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term effects of a program that targeted a specific set of family and individual process, which had been consistently shown to be associated with children’s post-divorce adjustment and were potentially modifi- able by a relatively brief intervention. Similar studies should be conducted to assess the long-term effects of programs that focus on other potential mediators of children’s post-divorce adjustment, such as the quality of fathers’ parenting. We are in the process of conducting an effectiveness trial to address several of these limi- tations in which we are testing the parenting program with a heterogeneous sample of both residential and non-residential fa- thers and mothers when delivered by community providers under real-world conditions.
There are other potentially fruitful research questions. It will be important to identify the program components that account for the NBP’s long-term effects. Studies have shown that program- induced improvements in parenting accounted for program effects on a wide range of mental health problems at earlier waves including higher coping efficacy, improved academic perfor- mance, as well as reduced mental health and substance use prob- lems (Sigal, Wolchik, Tein, & Sandler, 2012; Tein et al., 2004; Vélez, Wolchik, Tein, & Sandler, 2011; Zhou et al., 2008). Parallel analyses are needed to assess the developmental pathways by which the changes induced by the program in adolescence led to reductions in major depression and substance-related disorders in young adulthood. Given research that demonstrates significant continuity in development (Bardone et al., 1998; Capaldi & Stool-
miller, 1999), these analyses should include attention to youths’ mental health functioning at earlier assessments as well as the family and individual processes targeted in the program. Conduct- ing a cost-benefit analysis is another important direction for future research. Further, it will be important to examine whether the benefits of the program are found in other areas of adaptation in young adulthood (e.g., romantic relationships) and to reassess the sample to see whether the effects observed in young adulthood are maintained in future developmental periods.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4 –18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2003). Manual for the ASEBA Adult Forms and Profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Cen- ter for Children, Youth, and Families.
Afifi, T. O., Boman, J., Fleisher, W., & Sareen, J. (2009). The relationship between child abuse, parental divorce, and lifetime mental disorders and suicidality in a nationally representative adult sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 139 –147. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.12.009
Ake, C. F., & Carpenter, A. L. (2002). Survival analysis with PHREG: Using MI and MIANALYZE to accommodate missing data. Paper pre- sented at the 10th Annual Western Users of SAS Software Group Conference, Cary, NC. Retrieved from http://www.caloxy.com/papers/ 47-ImputedPHREG.pdf
Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355–370. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.355
America’s Children. (2011). Key national indicators of well-being. Wash- ington, DC: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics.
Arnett, J. J., & Tanner, J. L. (Eds.). (2006). Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century. doi:10.1037/11381-000
Bardone, A. M., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Dickson, N., Stanton, W. R., & Silva, P. A. (1998). Adult physical health outcomes of adolescent girls with conduct disorder, depression, and anxiety. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 594 – 601. doi:10.1097/ 00004583-199806000-00009
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (2000). On the adaptive control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing with independent statistics. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 25, 60 – 83. doi:10.3102/ 10769986025001060
Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, di- vorce, and remarriage in the United States: Vital health statistics (Series 23, No. 2). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
Braver, S. L., Griffin, W. A., & Cookston, J. T. (2005). Prevention programs for divorced non-resident fathers. Family Court Review, 43, 81–96. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2005.00009.x
Burke, K. C., Burke, J. D., Regier, D. A., & Rae, D. S. (1990). Age at onset of selected mental disorders in five community populations. Archives of General Psychiatry, 47, 511–518. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1990 .01810180011002
Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller- Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 42– 57. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0601_05
Cancian, M., & Meyer, D. (1998). Who gets custody? Demography, 35, 147–157. doi:10.2307/3004048
Capaldi, D. M., & Stoolmiller, M. (1999). Co-occurrence of conduct problems and depressive symptoms in early adolescent boys: III. Pre- diction to young-adult adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 59 – 84. doi:10.1017/S0954579499001959
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
671FOLLOW-UP OF AN INTERVENTION FOR DIVORCED FAMILIES
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.12.009
http://www.caloxy.com/papers/47-ImputedPHREG.pdf
http://www.caloxy.com/papers/47-ImputedPHREG.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.355
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11381-000
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199806000-00009
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199806000-00009
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/10769986025001060
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/10769986025001060
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2005.00009.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1990.01810180011002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1990.01810180011002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0601_05
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3004048
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579499001959
Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Cherlin, A. J., & Kiernan, K. K. (1995). The long-term effects of parental divorce on the mental health of young adults: A developmental perspective. Child Development, 66, 1614 – 1634. doi:10.2307/1131900
Chilcoat, H. D., & Breslau, N. (1996). Alcohol disorders in young adult- hood: Effects of transitions into adult roles. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 37, 339 –349. doi:10.2307/2137261
Coie, J. D., Watt, N. F., West, S. G., Hawkins, J. D., Asarnow, J. R., Markman, H. J., . . . Long, B. (1993). The science of prevention: A conceptual framework and some directions for a national research pro- gram. American Psychologist, 48, 1013–1022. doi:10.1037/0003-066X .48.10.1013
Compton, W. M., & Cottler, L. B. (2000). The Diagnostic Interview Schedule. In M. Hersen & M. J. Segal (Eds.), The comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment: Personality assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 153–162). New York, NY: Wiley.
Cummings, E. M., Davies, P. T., & Campbell, S. B. (2000). New directions in the study of parenting and child development. In E. M. Cummings, P. T. Davies, & S. B. Campbell (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology and family process: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 200 –250). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Dawson-McClure, S. R., Sandler, I. N., Wolchik, S. A., & Millsap, R. E. (2004). Risk as a moderator of the effects of prevention programs for children from divorced families: A six-year longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 175–190. doi:0091-0627/04/0400- 0175/0
DeGarmo, D. S., & Forgatch, M. S. (2005). Early development of delin- quency within divorced families: Evaluating a randomized preventive intervention trial. Developmental Science, 8, 229 –239. doi:10.1111/j .1467-7687.2005.00412.x
DeGarmo, D. S., Patterson, G. R., & Forgatch, M. S. (2004). How do outcomes in a specified parent training intervention maintain or wane over time? Prevention Science, 5, 73– 89. doi:10.1023/B:PREV .0000023078.30191.e0
Eitle, D. (2006). Parental gender, single-parent families, and delinquency: Exploring the moderating influence of race/ethnicity. Social Science Research, 35, 727–748. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.06.003
Fabricius, W. V., Braver, S. L., Diaz, P., & Velez, C. E. (2010). Custody and parenting time: Links to family relationships and well-being after divorce. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 201–240). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Lynskey, M. T. (1994). Parental separation, adolescent psychopathology, and problem behaviors. Jour- nal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 1122–1133. doi:10.1097/00004583-199410000-00008
Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. S. (1999). Parenting through change: An effective prevention program for single mothers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 711–724. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.5 .711
Forgatch, M. S., Patterson, G. R., DeGarmo, D. S., & Beldavs, Z. G. (2009). Testing the Oregon delinquency model with 9-year follow-up of the Oregon Divorce Study. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 637– 660. doi:10.1017/S0954579409000340
Grant, B. F., Stinson, F. S., Dawson, D. A., Chou, S. P., Dufour, M. C., Compton, W., . . . Kaplan, K. (2004). Prevalence and co-occurrence of substance use disorders and independent mood and anxiety disorders: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61, 807– 816. doi:10.1001/ archpsyc.61.8.807
Gribble, J. N., Miller, H. G., Rogers, S. M., & Turner, C. F. (1999). Interview mode and measurement of sexual behaviors: Methodological issues. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 16 –24. doi:10.1080/ 00224499909551963
Guerney, B. G., Coufal, J., & Vogelsong, E. (1981). Relationship enhance- ment versus a traditional approach to therapeutic/preventative/ enrichment parent–adolescent programs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 927–939. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.49.6.927
Guo, G., & Zhao, H. (2000). Multilevel modeling for binary data. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 441– 462. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.441
Hanson, G. R., & Li, T. (2003). Public health implications of excessive alcohol consumption. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Associ- ation, 289, 1031–1032. doi:10.1001/jama.289.8.1031
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile of Children (Revision of the Perceived Competence Scale for Children). Unpub- lished manuscript, University of Denver, CO.
Hetherington, E. M. (1999). Social capital and the development of youth from nondivorced, divorced, and remarried families. In B. Laursen & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Relationships as developmental contexts: The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 177–209). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Institute of Medicine. (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders: Fron- tiers for preventive intervention research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1993). Smoking, drinking, and illicit drug use among American secondary school stu- dents, college students, and young adults, 1975–1991 (NIH Publication No. 93-3481). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2008). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2007. Vol. 2: College students and adults ages 19 – 45 (NIH Publication No. 08-6418B). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2011). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2010. Vol. I: Secondary school students and Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2010. Vol. II: College students and adults ages 19 –50. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
Jurs, D. G., & Glass, G. V. (1971). The effect of experimental mortality on the internal and external validity of the randomized comparative exper- iment. Journal of Experimental Education, 40, 62– 66.
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM–IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 593– 602. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593
Kessler, R. C., Davis, C. G., & Kendler, K. S. (1997). Childhood adversity and adult psychiatric disorder in the U.S. National Comorbidity Survey. Psychological Medicine, 27, 1101–1119. doi:10.1017/ S0033291797005588
Kovacs, M. (1985). The Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI). Psycho- pharmacology Bulletin, 21, 995–998.
Lonczak, H. S., Abbott, R. D., Hawkins, J. D., Kosterman, R., & Catalano, R. F. (2002). Effects of the Seattle Social Development Project on sexual behavior, pregnancy, birth, and sexually transmitted disease outcomes by age 21 years. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 156, 438 – 447. doi:10.1001/archpedi.156.5.438
Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (1985). Relapse prevention: Maintenance strategies in the treatment of addictive behaviors. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Muñoz, R. F., Beardslee, W. R., & Leykin, Y. (2012). Major depression can be prevented. American Psychologist, 67, 285–295. doi:10.1037/ a0027666
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2010). Mplus user’s guide: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
National Center for Health Statistics. (2008). Marriage and divorce. Re- trieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
672 WOLCHIK ET AL.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131900
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2137261
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.10.1013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.10.1013
http://dx.doi.org/0091-0627/04/0400-0175/0
http://dx.doi.org/0091-0627/04/0400-0175/0
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00412.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00412.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:PREV.0000023078.30191.e0
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:PREV.0000023078.30191.e0
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.06.003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199410000-00008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.67.5.711
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.67.5.711
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000340
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.61.8.807
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.61.8.807
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551963
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551963
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.49.6.927
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.441
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.8.1031
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0033291797005588
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0033291797005588
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.156.5.438
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027666
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027666
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog .php?record_id�12480
Novaco, R. A. (1975). Anger control: The development and evaluation of an experimental treatment. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Patterson, G. R. (1976). Parents and teachers as change agents: A social learning approach. In D. Olson (Ed.), Treating relationships (pp. 189 – 215). Lake Mills, IA: Graphic Press.
Paxton, R., Valois, R., & Drane, J. (2007). Is there a relationship between family structure and substance use among public middle school stu- dents? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 593– 605. doi:10.1007/ s10826-006-9109-y
Pedro-Carroll, J. L., & Cowen, E. L. (1985). The Children of Divorce Intervention Program: An investigation of the efficacy of a school-based prevention program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 603– 611. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.53.5.603
Pedro-Carroll, J. L., Sutton, S. E., & Wyman, P. A. (1999). A two-year follow-up evaluation of a preventive intervention for young children of divorce. School Psychology Review, 28, 467– 476.
Program for Prevention Research. (1985). The Divorce Adjustment Project Externalizing Scale. Unpublished manual, Arizona State University, Tempe.
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Ou, S.-R., Robertson, D. L., Mersky, J. P., Topitzes, J. W., & Niles, M. D. (2007). Effects of a school-based, early childhood intervention on adult health and well-being: A 19-year follow-up of low-income families. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161, 730 –739. doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.8.730
Reynolds, C. R., & Richmond, B. O. (1978). What I think and feel: A revised measure of Children’s Manifest Anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6, 271–280. doi:10.1007/BF00919131
Robin, L. N., Cottler, L. B., Bucholz, K. K., Compton, W. M., North, C. S., & Rourke, K. M. (2000). Diagnostic Interview Schedule for the DSM–IV (DIS-IV). Available from http://epi.wustl.edu/DIS/DIShome.htm
Sameroff, A. J. (2000). Developmental systems and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 297–312. doi:10.1017/ S0954579400003035
Sandler, I. N., Schoenfelder, E., Wolchik, S. A., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). Long-term impact of prevention programs to promote effective parenting: Lasting effects but uncertain processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 299 –329. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131619
SAS Institute. (2010). SAS/STAT 9.22 user’s guide. Cary, NC: Author. Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state
of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177. doi:10.1037/1082-989X .7.2.147
Schulenberg, J. E., Sameroff, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2004). The transition to adulthood as a critical juncture in the course of psychopathology and mental health. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 799 – 806. doi: 10.1017/S0954579404040015
Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1997). The High/Scope Preschool Curriculum Comparison Study through age 23. Early Childhood Re- search Quarterly, 12, 117–143. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(97)90009-0
Scott, K. G., Mason, C. A., & Chapman, D. A. (1999). The use of epidemiological methodology as a means of influencing public policy. Child Development, 70, 1263–1272. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00091
Shaffer, D., Fisher, P., Lucas, C. P., Dulcan, M. K., & Schwab-Stone, M. E. (2000). NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV (NIMH DISC-IV): Description, differences from previous versions, and reliability of some common diagnoses. Journal of the American Acad- emy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 28 –38. doi:10.1097/ 00004583-200001000-00014
Sher, K. J., Walitzer, K. S., Wood, P. K., & Brent, E. E. (1991). Charac- teristics of children of alcoholics: Putative risk factors, substance use and abuse, and psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 427– 448. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.100.4.427
Sigal, A. B., Wolchik, S. A., Tein, J. Y., & Sandler, I. N. (2012). Enhancing youth outcomes following parental divorce: A longitudinal study of the effects of the New Beginnings Program on educational and occupational goals. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychol- ogy, 41, 150 –165. doi:10.1080/15374416.2012.651992
Stolberg, A. L., & Garrison, K. M. (1985). Evaluating a primary prevention program for children of divorce. American Journal of Community Psy- chology, 13, 111–124. doi:10.1007/BF00905724
Stolberg, A. L., & Mahler, J. (1994). Enhancing treatment gains in a school-based intervention for children of divorce through skill training, parental involvement, and transfer procedures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 147–156. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.62.1 .147
Tein, J.-Y., Sandler, I. N., MacKinnon, D. P., & Wolchik, S. A. (2004). How did it work? Who did it work for? Mediation and mediated moderation of a preventive intervention for children of divorce. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 617– 624. doi:10.1037/0022- 006X.72.4.617
Troxel, W. M., & Matthews, K. A. (2004). What are the costs of marital conflict and dissolution to children’s physical health? Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 7, 29 –57. doi:10.1023/B:CCFP .0000020191.73542.b0
U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). Current population survey: 2004 annual social and economic supplement. Retrieved from http://www.census .gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/ms2.pdf
Vélez, C. E., Wolchik, S. A., Tein, J. Y., & Sandler, I. (2011). Protecting children from the consequences of divorce: A longitudinal study of the effects of parenting on children’s coping processes. Child Development, 82, 244 –257. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01553.x
Wolchik, S. A., Sandler, I. N., Millsap, R. E., Plummer, B. A., Greene, S. M., Anderson, E. R., . . . Haine, R. A. (2002). Six-year follow-up of a randomized, controlled trial of preventive interventions for children of divorce. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 288, 1874 –1881. doi:10.1001/jama.288.15.1874
Wolchik, S. A., Sandler, I., Weiss, L., & Winslow, E. B. (2007). New Beginnings: An empirically-based program to help divorced mothers promote resilience in their children. In J. M. Briesmeister & C. E. Schaefer (Eds.), Handbook of parent training: Helping parents prevent and solve problem behaviors (pp. 25– 62). New York, NY: Wiley.
Wolchik, S. A., West, S. G., Sandler, I. N., Tein, J.-Y., Coatsworth, D., Lengua, L., . . . Griffin, W. A. (2000). An experimental evaluation of theory-based mother and mother– child programs for children of divorce. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 843– 856. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.68.5.843
Wolchik, S. A., West, S. G., Westover, S., Sandler, I. N., Martin, A., Lustig, J., . . . Fisher, J. (1993). The Children of Divorce Parenting Intervention: Outcome evaluation of an empirically based program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 293–331. doi:10.1007/ BF00941505
Zhou, Q., Sandler, I. N., Millsap, R. E., Wolchik, S. A., & Dawson- McClure, S. R. (2008). Mother– child relationship quality and effective discipline as mediators of the 6-year effects of the New Beginnings Program for children from divorced families. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 579 –594. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.76.4.579
Received December 13, 2011 Revision received December 31, 2012
Accepted April 1, 2013 �
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
673FOLLOW-UP OF AN INTERVENTION FOR DIVORCED FAMILIES
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12480
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12480
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-006-9109-y
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-006-9109-y
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.53.5.603
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.161.8.730
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00919131
http://epi.wustl.edu/DIS/DIShome.htm
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400003035
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400003035
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131619
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579404040015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579404040015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006%2897%2990009-0
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00091
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200001000-00014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200001000-00014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.100.4.427
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2012.651992
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00905724
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.62.1.147
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.62.1.147
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.4.617
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.4.617
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:CCFP.0000020191.73542.b0
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:CCFP.0000020191.73542.b0
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/ms2.pdf
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/ms2.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01553.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.15.1874
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.5.843
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.5.843
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00941505
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00941505
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.4.579
- Fifteen-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Trial of a Preventive Intervention for Divorced Families: …
- Method
- Participants
- Sample Size, Power, and Precision
- Measures
- Mental health outcomes
- Substance use outcomes
- Covariates
- Intervention and Control Conditions
- Intervention conditions
- Control condition
- Random Assignment
- Masking
- Data Analytic Approach
- Results
- Participant Flow
- Treatment Integrity
- Preliminary Analyses
- Analyses of Intervention Effects
- Mental health outcomes within past 9 years
- Substance use outcomes within the past 9 years
- Mental health and substance-related disorder since program entry (past 15 years)
- Discussion
- References
- Method
