•  

Intervention Summary

Back to Results Start New Search

SMARTteam

SMARTteam (Students Managing Anger and Resolution Together) is a multimedia, computer-based violence prevention intervention designed for 6th through 9th graders (11-15 years of age). The program is based on social learning theory as well as a skill acquisition model that approaches learning as a five-stage process ranging from novice to expert, with learners at each stage having different needs. The software's eight modules use games, graphics, simulations, cartoons, and interactive interviews to teach conflict resolution skills in three categories: anger management, dispute resolution, and perspective-taking. Anger management focuses on anger-control training; dispute resolution assists students in learning and using negotiation and compromise skills to resolve disputes; perspective-taking allows students to understand that others may have views and feelings different from their own. The various modules can be used separately or together in a sequential manner. Once installed on computers, SMARTteam is easy to use, requiring only rudimentary computer skills on the part of the students.

Descriptive Information

Areas of Interest Mental health promotion
Outcomes Review Date: November 2006
1: Self-awareness/self-knowledge
2: Intent to use nonviolent strategies in resolving conflicts
3: Beliefs supportive of violence
4: Prosocial behavior
5: Trouble-causing behavior
Outcome Categories Education
Family/relationships
Social functioning
Violence
Ages 6-12 (Childhood)
13-17 (Adolescent)
Genders Male
Female
Races/Ethnicities Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
White
Race/ethnicity unspecified
Settings School
Geographic Locations No geographic locations were identified by the developer.
Implementation History SMARTteam has been implemented at approximately 650 schools throughout the United States.
NIH Funding/CER Studies Partially/fully funded by National Institutes of Health: No
Evaluated in comparative effectiveness research studies: No
Adaptations No population- or culture-specific adaptations of the intervention were identified by the developer.
Adverse Effects No adverse effects, concerns, or unintended consequences were identified by the developer.
IOM Prevention Categories Universal

Quality of Research
Review Date: November 2006

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 1

Bosworth, K., Espelage, D. L., DuBay, T., Daytner, G., & Karageorge, K. (2000). A preliminary evaluation of a multimedia violence prevention program for early adolescence. American Journal of Health Behavior, 24(4), 268-280.

Study 2

Bosworth, K., Espelage, D., & DuBay, T. (1998). A computer-based violence prevention intervention for young adolescents: Pilot study. Adolescence, 33(132), 785-795.  Pub Med icon

Supplementary Materials

Bosworth, K., Espelage, D., DuBay, T., Dahlberg, L. L., & Daytner, G. (1996). Using multimedia to teach conflict-resolution skills to young adolescents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Supplement to 12(5), 65-74.  Pub Med icon

Bosworth, K. (n.d.). Talking it out: A computer-based mediation process for adolescents. In H. Resnick (Ed.), Social Work and Technology. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press.

Outcomes

Outcome 1: Self-awareness/self-knowledge
Description of Measures Students' understanding of their own behavior and how it can contribute to an escalation in conflict was assessed by self-reported levels of agreement with 6 statements describing actions/behaviors when faced with conflict.
Key Findings In one evaluation, SMARTteam participants increased their awareness of how their behaviors contribute to the escalation of a conflict situation (p < .01); the percentage of participants who recognized that fighting escalates conflict rose from 43% at pretest to 77% after the program. A second evaluation did not confirm this outcome.
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1, Study 2
Study Designs Experimental, Preexperimental
Quality of Research Rating 2.4 (0.0-4.0 scale)
Outcome 2: Intent to use nonviolent strategies in resolving conflicts
Description of Measures Students completed 8 items measuring their intentions to use nonviolent strategies when dealing with a future conflict by responding along a scale ranging from "very unlikely" to "very likely."
Key Findings The mean intent to use nonviolent strategies when faced with conflict situations increased from pretest to posttest among SMARTteam participants in two evaluations (p < .01).
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1, Study 2
Study Designs Experimental, Preexperimental
Quality of Research Rating 2.4 (0.0-4.0 scale)
Outcome 3: Beliefs supportive of violence
Description of Measures The degree to which students held beliefs supportive of violence was assessed by 6 items in which students rated their level of agreement/disagreement with statements describing beliefs about violent or nonviolent options when faced with conflict situations.
Key Findings SMARTteam participants were less likely than their peers to value violence as an option in conflict situations (p < .05).
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 2.8 (0.0-4.0 scale)
Outcome 4: Prosocial behavior
Description of Measures Self-reported incidence of prosocial behavior was measured using 6 items asking students how many times they performed particular prosocial behaviors in the last 30 days.
Key Findings The percentage of SMARTteam participants reporting prosocial behaviors increased from pretest to posttest (p < .01), with as much as a doubling in the percentages of students engaging in behaviors such as assisting other students in solving problems (15% to 30%).

Rates of name-calling (at least twice) declined pretest to posttest (45% to 23%), a statistically significant decrease.
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 2
Study Designs Preexperimental
Quality of Research Rating 2.1 (0.0-4.0 scale)
Outcome 5: Trouble-causing behavior
Description of Measures Students reported the number of times they had been in trouble at home, in the community, and at school in the last 30 days.
Key Findings Students were significantly less likely to get into trouble at home, in the community, or at school after participating in SMARTteam. The pretest-posttest changes were substantial: The percentages of students reporting never getting into trouble at home and at school increased from 13% to 32% and from 33% to 44%, respectively.
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 2
Study Designs Preexperimental
Quality of Research Rating 2.5 (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)
54% Female
46% Male
84% White
9% Black or African American
7% Race/ethnicity unspecified
Study 2 6-12 (Childhood)
13-17 (Adolescent)
55% Female
45% Male
90% White
6% Black or African American
3% Hispanic or Latino
1% Race/ethnicity unspecified

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:

  1. Reliability of measures
  2. Validity of measures
  3. Intervention fidelity
  4. Missing data and attrition
  5. Potential confounding variables
  6. Appropriateness of analysis

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: Self-awareness/self-knowledge 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.3 3.0 2.4
2: Intent to use nonviolent strategies in resolving conflicts 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.3 3.0 2.4
3: Beliefs supportive of violence 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.8 3.0 2.8
4: Prosocial behavior 2.5 1.8 2.8 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.1
5: Trouble-causing behavior 2.8 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.3 3.0 2.5

Study Strengths

The authors used a randomized treatment and control design with a representative sample of participants who provided guidance during the intervention's development. The computer-based model helped strengthen the systematic data collection process, and the intervention was tailored to meet the individual needs of the participants, as they could select different components of the intervention based on their individual needs. Furthermore, certain measures were derived from previously published materials, and the Cronbach's alpha levels of the scales were acceptable.

Study Weaknesses

The use of only self-report data was a weakness. The unit of analysis was not the same as the unit of assignment. In one study, only 34% of participants used the "What's Anger" module and only 17% used the "Talking It Out" module; therefore it is not known if the use of all the modules is necessary. More studies are needed to address fidelity issues. While there was a stated impact on the knowledge and intent of most of the participants, no evidence was shown that this translated into changed behavior. In one study, posttest and pretest were only 4 weeks apart, and no control group was used; consequently, confounds such as testing effects, maturation, and history may exist.

Readiness for Dissemination
Review Date: November 2006

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.

Bosworth, K. (2002). Talking it out: A computer-based mediation process for adolescents. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 20(1/2), 67-81.

Learning Systems Multimedia Catalog

SMARTteam Getting Started instruction sheet

SMARTteam (Students Managing Anger and Resolution Together). (2003). Managing anger [CD-ROM]. Madison, WI: Indiana University.

SMARTteam (Students Managing Anger and Resolution Together). (2003). Resolving conflicts [CD-ROM]. Madison, WI: Indiana University.

Readiness for Dissemination Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)

External reviewers independently evaluate the intervention's Readiness for Dissemination using three criteria:

  1. Availability of implementation materials
  2. Availability of training and support resources
  3. 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
3.5 2.8 0.5 2.3

Dissemination Strengths

The program materials are offered in an interactive, engaging multimedia format. A variety of experiential activities are included to help students develop skills in managing conflict and anger in a variety of venues. Each session is outlined for the instructor with guidelines for facilitating groups. Implementers can access technical support through a toll-free number or via e-mail.

Dissemination Weaknesses

A table of contents for the CD-ROM would make materials easier to navigate. The program requires, at a minimum, a computer, and printer. There appears to be no formalized, face-to-face instructor training formation to provide violence information to instructors or discuss special situations that might arise through program implementation. No information is provided regarding intervention target ages and audiences or suggested venues for instruction. While a description of program goals and objectives are provided, no protocols for gathering process or outcome data or ongoing monitoring of intervention fidelity and supervision/training feedback are described.

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
CD set $190 each Yes
Lab packs $390 for 5, $590 for 10, or $790 for 20 Yes
Computer program license $990 per site Yes
3-hour, on-site SMARTteam professional development training $1,200 per site, including travel expenses No
Technical support via phone Free No
Quality assurance tools Included with implementation materials No
Replications

No replications were identified by the developer.

Contact Information

To learn more about implementation, contact:
Brad Oltrogge
(800) 362-7323
Oltrogge@LMSsite.com

To learn more about research, contact:
Kris Bosworth, Ph.D.
(520) 626-4964
boswortk@u.arizona.edu

Consider these Questions to Ask (PDF, 54KB) as you explore the possible use of this intervention.

Web Site(s):