Quality of Research
Documents Reviewed
The documents below were reviewed for Quality of Research. The research point of
contact can provide information regarding the studies reviewed and the availability
of additional materials, including those from more recent studies that may have been conducted.
Study 1Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (2001). Preparing for the Drug Free Years: Session-specific effects of a universal parent-training intervention with rural families. Journal of Drug Education, 31(1), 47-68. 
Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Spoth, R., Haggerty, K. P., & Zhu, K. (1997). Effects of a preventive parent-training intervention on observed family interactions: Proximal outcomes from Preparing for the Drug Free Years. Journal of Community Psychology, 25(4), 337-352.
Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Haggerty, K., & Ward, T. (1995). A controlled parenting skills outcome study examining individual difference and attendance effects. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 449-464. Study 2Mason, W. A., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., & Spoth, R. L. (2003). Reducing adolescents' growth in substance use and delinquency: Randomized trial effects of a preventive parent-training intervention. Prevention Science, 4(3), 203-212.
Mason, W. A., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., Spoth, R. L., & Redmond, C. (2007). Influence of a family-focused substance use preventive intervention on growth in adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(3), 541-564.
Park, J., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., et al. (2000). Effects of the "Preparing for the Drug Free Years" curriculum on growth in alcohol use and risk for alcohol use in early adolescence. Prevention Science, 1(3), 125-138.
Redmond, C., Spoth, R., Shin, C., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). Modeling long-term parent outcomes of two universal family-focused preventive interventions: One-year follow-up results. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(6), 975-984.
Spoth, R., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (1998). Direct and indirect latent-variable parenting outcomes of two universal family-focused preventive interventions: Extending a public health-oriented research base. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 385-399.
Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2001). Randomized trial of brief family interventions for general populations: Adolescent substance use outcomes 4 years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(4), 627-642.
Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Shin, C., & Azevedo, K. (2004). Brief family intervention effects on adolescent substance initiation: School-level curvilinear growth curve analyses 6 years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(3), 535-542.
Spoth, R., Reyes, M. L., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (1999). Assessing a public health approach to delay onset and progression of adolescent substance use: Latent transition and log-linear analyses of longitudinal family preventive intervention outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(5), 619-630.
Supplementary Materials Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M., & Pennucci, A. (2004). Benefits and costs of prevention and early intervention programs for youth. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Outcomes
| Outcome 1: Substance use |
|
Description of Measures
|
Substance use was measured by youth self-reports of the frequency and quantity of use of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and other illicit drugs. Data were collected at pretest and 9, 21, 33, 51, and 75 months after the intervention.
|
|
Key Findings
|
Adolescents from families assigned to the intervention who reported they had not used substances 1 year after the intervention were more likely to remain nonusers 2 years later compared with adolescents from families not assigned to the intervention.
Adolescents from families assigned to the intervention who did report having used substances 1 year after the intervention were more likely to remain at the same level of use 1 year later compared with adolescents from families not assigned to the intervention (p < .05).
Through 4 years following the intervention, adolescents from families assigned to the intervention reported less increase in lifetime marijuana use and drunkenness and less growth in alcohol use compared with adolescent from families not assigned to the intervention (p < .05). Overall, substance use increased at a slower rate for the GGC group compared with the control group.
Adolescents from families assigned to the intervention also had a slower overall rate of increase in self-reported lifetime cigarette use and total tobacco use index through 6 years following the intervention (p < .05).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 2
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.6
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 2: Parenting behaviors and family interactions |
|
Description of Measures
|
Parenting behaviors and family interactions (known risk and protective factors for adolescent substance use) were assessed using self-report measures and direct observation of family interactions in a general discussion task and a problem-solving task. Parental behaviors included intervention-specific skills and general child management skills. Intervention-specific skills included communicating clear rules about substance use, explaining consequences and rewarding compliance with substance use rules, helping the child learn how to express and control anger, and finding ways to keep the child involved in family activities and decisions. General child management skills included rewarding positive child behavior, child monitoring, and effective discipline.
|
|
Key Findings
|
Parents assigned to the intervention reported or demonstrated better intervention-specific and general child management skills compared with parents in the control group (p < .05). Outcomes were best for parents who attended the intervention classes regularly and reported higher readiness for parenting change.
Observations of family interactions indicated that mothers assigned to the intervention exhibited less negative interaction in the general discussion task and more proactive communication in both tasks compared with control group mothers (p < .05). Mothers assigned to the intervention also used a less interrogating style and less antagonistic behavior in interacting with their children compared with control group mothers (p < .03). Fathers assigned to the intervention exhibited more proactive communication and better relationship quality in the problem-solving task compared with control group fathers (p < .05).
On self-report measures, mothers assigned to the intervention were more likely than control group mothers to report that they reward their child for prosocial behavior, communicate rules about substance use, punish their child for misbehavior, restrict their child's alcohol use, expect their child to refuse a beer from a friend, express less conflict with their spouse, and work at being more involved with their child (p < .05). Fathers assigned to the intervention were more likely than control group fathers to report more communication with their child regarding rules on substance use and more involvement from their child (p < .05).
In a subsequent study, parents assigned to the intervention reported better intervention-specific parental behaviors compared with control group parents (e.g., communicating clear rules about substance use, explaining consequences and rewarding compliance with substance use rules, helping the child learn how to express and control anger, and finding ways to keep the child involved in family activities and decisions). The effect size for this finding was small (Cohen's d = 0.45).
Intervention parents also reported better general child management and parent-child affective quality (p < .05); this result was maintained 1 year after the intervention with a small effect size (Cohen's d = 0.29).
Parents assigned to the intervention also reported establishing stronger norms against alcohol use relative to control group parents 3.5 years after the intervention (p < .05).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1, Study 2
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.9
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 3: Delinquency |
|
Description of Measures
|
Adolescents were asked to report their involvement in a range of non-drug-related delinquent activities in the past 12 months. The range of activities included items such as taking something worth $25 or more and purposely damaging public property. Data were collected at pretest and 9, 21, 33, and 51 months after pretest.
|
|
Key Findings
|
Adolescents from families assigned to the intervention had a slower rate of increase in self-reported activities associated with delinquency compared with adolescents from families not assigned to the intervention (p < .05). In addition, the frequency of participation in these activities served as a reliable predictor of substance use (p < .01).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 2
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.6
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 4: Symptoms of depression (adolescents) |
|
Description of Measures
|
Adolescents were asked to report feelings and behaviors associated with depression at the time of assessment or in the preceding 6 months. The measure included 8 items such as "I feel worthless or inferior," "I am unhappy, sad, or depressed," and "I think about killing myself." Data were collected at pretest and 9, 21, 33, and 51 months after pretest.
|
|
Key Findings
|
Adolescents from families assigned to the intervention had a slower rate of increase in self-reported depressive symptoms compared with adolescents from families not assigned to the intervention (p < .05).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 2
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
3.1
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
Study Populations
The following populations were identified in the studies reviewed for Quality of
Research.
|
Study
|
Age
|
Gender
|
Race/Ethnicity
|
|
Study 1
|
6-12 (Childhood)
13-17 (Adolescent)
26-55 (Adult)
|
Data not reported/available
|
100% White
|
|
Study 2
|
6-12 (Childhood)
13-17 (Adolescent)
26-55 (Adult)
|
Data not reported/available
|
100% White
|
Quality of Research Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)
External reviewers independently evaluate the Quality of Research for an intervention's
reported results using six criteria:
For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Quality of Research.
|
Outcome
|
Reliability
of Measures
|
Validity
of Measures
|
Fidelity
|
Missing
Data/Attrition
|
Confounding
Variables
|
Data
Analysis
|
Overall
Rating
|
|
1: Substance use
|
2.8
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
3.0
|
2.6
|
|
2: Parenting behaviors and family interactions
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
2.5
|
3.0
|
2.9
|
|
3: Delinquency
|
2.8
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
3.0
|
2.6
|
|
4: Symptoms of depression (adolescents)
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
2.5
|
4.0
|
3.1
|
Study Strengths Measures of substance use are typical of those used in similar research. The authors provided a standardized training program to staff who delivered the intervention, tracked fidelity of implementation using videotapes and systematic observations, made efforts to address potential confounds, and statistically accounted for missing data.
Study Weaknesses In one study, 43% of the sample pool declined to participate, so it appears that the participants were highly motivated; it is unclear how this might have affected the results. Between 18% and 26% of the intervention curriculum was not covered in one study.
|
|
Readiness for Dissemination
Materials Reviewed
The materials below were reviewed for Readiness for Dissemination. The implementation
point of contact can provide information regarding implementation of the intervention
and the availability of additional, updated, or new materials.
Channing Bete Company. (2004). Guiding Good Choices Preview Kit. South Deerfield, MA.
Guiding Good Choices teleconference postcard
Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2002). Guiding Good Choices: Family guide (2004 Edition). South Deerfield, MA: Channing Bete Company.
Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2002). Guiding Good Choices video [VHS]. South Deerfield, MA: Channing Bete Company.
Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2002). Guiding Good Choices: Workshop leader's guide. South Deerfield, MA: Channing Bete Company.
Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2003). Guiding Good Choices: Family guide (Spanish). South Deerfield, MA: Channing Bete Company.
Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2003). Guiding Good Choices: Trainer's manual for training workshop leaders. South Deerfield, MA: Channing Bete Company.
Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2004). Guiding Good Choices: Training of trainers. Participant's guide. South Deerfield, MA: Channing Bete Company.
Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2004). Guiding Good Choices: Training of trainers. Trainer's manual. South Deerfield, MA: Channing Bete Company.
Readiness for Dissemination Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)
External reviewers independently evaluate the intervention's Readiness for Dissemination
using three criteria:
- Availability of implementation materials
- Availability of training and support resources
- Availability of quality assurance procedures
For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Readiness for Dissemination.
Implementation
Materials
|
Training and Support
Resources
|
Quality Assurance
Procedures
|
Overall
Rating
|
|
4.0
|
3.0
|
3.5
|
3.5
|
Dissemination Strengths Program materials provide everything needed for implementation. Instructions are clear and concise, and the layout and graphics of the materials are high quality. Training for workshop leaders and certified trainers is available. Pre- and posttest surveys and instructions are provided to support quality assurance. Fidelity is emphasized throughout the program materials.
Dissemination Weaknesses While refresher courses are available, no ongoing training for advanced trainers and workshop leaders is available. No tools are provided in the program kit for conducting follow-up evaluation with families.
|
|
Costs
The cost information below was provided by the developer. Although this cost information
may have been updated by the developer since the time of review, it may not reflect
the current costs or availability of items (including newly developed or discontinued
items). The implementation point of contact can provide current information and
discuss implementation requirements.
|
Item Description
|
Cost
|
Required by Developer
|
|
Core program kit
|
$839 each; discounts are available for 10 or more
|
Yes
|
|
Family guide
|
$13.99 each; discounts available for 10 or more
|
Yes
|
|
3-day, on-site training
|
$4,200 for up to 12 people, plus travel expenses
|
No
|
|
Consultation by phone or email
|
$100 per hour
|
No
|
|
On-site technical assistance
|
$1,200 per day or $600 per half-day, plus travel expenses
|
No
|
|
Pre- and posttests
|
Free
|
No
|
Additional Information The basic cost to deliver the intervention to a group of 10 parents is approximately $968.
|
Replications
Selected citations are presented below. An asterisk indicates that the document
was reviewed for Quality of Research.
Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Haggerty, K. P., Hawkins, J. D., & Spoth, R. (1998). A universal intervention for the prevention of substance abuse: Preparing for the Drug-Free Years. In R. S. Ashery, E. B. Robertson, & K. L. Kumpfer (Eds.), Drug abuse prevention through family interventions (NIDA Research Monograph 177, NIH Publication No. 97-4135, pp. 130-159). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Guyll, M., Spoth, R. L., Chao, W., Wickrama, K. A., & Russell, D. (2004). Family-focused preventive interventions: Evaluating parental risk moderation of substance use trajectories. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(2), 293-301.
Haggerty, K. P., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1999, July). Preparing for the Drug Free Years. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Juvenile Justice Bulletin [NCJ 173408].
Harachi, T. W., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1997). Effective recruitment for parenting programs within ethnic minority communities. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 14(1), 23-39.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Kent, L. A. (1991). Combining broadcast media and parent education to prevent teenage drug abuse. In L. Donohew, H. E. Sypher, & W. J. Bukoski (Eds.), Persuasive communication and drug abuse prevention (pp. 283-294). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
* Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (2001). Preparing for the Drug-Free Years: Session-specific effects of a universal parent-training intervention with rural families. Journal of Drug Education, 31(1), 47-68.
* Mason, W. A., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., & Spoth, R. L. (2003). Reducing adolescents' growth in substance use and delinquency: Randomized trial effects of a preventive parent-training intervention. Prevention Science, 4(3), 203-212.
* Mason, W. A., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., Spoth, R. L., & Redmond, C. (2007). Influence of a family-focused substance use preventive intervention on growth in adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(3), 541-564.
Rueter, M. A., Conger R. D., & Ramisetty-Mikler, S. (1999). Assessing the benefits of a parenting skills training program: A theoretical approach to predicting direct and moderating effects. Family Relations, 48(1), 67-77.
Spoth R. L., Guyll, M., & Day, S. X. (2002). Universal family-focused interventions in alcohol-use disorder prevention: Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of two interventions. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(2), 219-228.
|
|
|
