Primary prevention programs aimed at helping adolescents develop personal and social coping skills have received empirical support as methods capable of reducing the incidence of substance use. This study examined the effectiveness of school-based coping skills training with adolescents at high-risk for substance abuse. Students (N=279) at 29 secondary schools participated in the study. The schools were matched in terms of size, racial composition, and percentage of students receiving a free lunch and then were randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions: (1) school intervention--coping skills training for students plus training for school staff; (2) school plus parent coping skills intervention; and (3) comparison control. Results indicated that students in the coping skills conditions increased their knowledge of the skills; however, positive changes in personality characteristics, substance knowledge, and behavior growth for those in the coping skills training groups did not differ from those for the comparison control group. While these data suggest that preventive intervention can have a positive effect on high risk youth, the role of coping skills training in preventing substance abuse in high risk adolescents remains unclear and is in need of further investigation. (Author/ABL)
Authors
- Authorizing Institution
- National Inst. on Drug Abuse (DHHS/PHS), Rockville, MD.
- Peer Reviewed
- F
- Publication Type
- ['Reports - Research', 'Speeches/Meeting Papers']
- Published in
- United States of America
Table of Contents
- Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association August 1989 New This work was supported by grant DA04022 from 2
- Adolescents at risk 3
- Abstract 3
- This study examined the effectiveness of 3
- The 3
- 1 school intervention - 3
- 2 school plus parent coping skills 3
- Adolescents at risk 4
- Coping Skills Training with Adolescents 4
- Primary prevention programs aimed at 4
- These 4
- 1977 and problem behavior theory Jassor 4
- 1977 posit 4
- Initially LST was 4
- Baker 1963. 4
- LST Botvin 1987 indicated that at posttet 5
- The 6
- Design 6
- Within 6
- Adolescents at risk 7
- SI school plus parent intervention SPR or a 7
- Subjects 7
- Information from the 7
- At the one 7
- The average age of the total sample at 7
- Two hundred seven of the 7
- Adolescents at risk 8
- The high-risk nature of this sample is 8
- Households sample. 8
- Dependent measures 8
- A series of videotapes portraying 8
- School Intervention. The student training 9
- It consisted of a 10 session small group 9
- Participants were provided with a ta2e-home handbook 10
- Comparison Control. 11
- Effectiveness was examined using 4 x 3 12
- Personality measures 12
- 3.63 p .03 12
- R .007. 12
- Influenceability on the other hand 12
- F2360 6.54 p .003. 12
- Post 12
- 9.22 p .003. 13
- All groups showed a significant 13
- E2368 13.33 p .001 alcohol F2368 13
- 12 13 p .001 and narijuana 13
- However very 13
- Adolescents at risk 14
- E2176 3.59 2 .04 the frequency of 14
- Further analysis 14
- No differences 14
- From the structure matrices in Table 1 it can be seen 15
- Adolescents at risk 16
- Two functions were significant for time. 16
- The first 16
- These data suggest that preventive intervention can 16
- Thus this condition was 18
- Unfortunately the design of this 18
- Adolescents at risk 19
- References Achenbach T. M. Edelbrock C. 19
- Manual For 19
- Version of the 19
- University 19
- Social Learning Theory. 19
- Botvin G. Eng A. Williams C. 9180. 19
- Preventive Medicine 9 135-143. 19
- Englewood 19
- Preventing 19
- Botvin G. Eng A. 1982. 19
- Preventive Medicine 11 19
- Botvin G. J. 1983. 19
- Life Skills Training 19
- Smithfield Press. 19
- A one 19
- Year follow-ur. 19
- Health Association meetings. Los Angeles CA. 19
- Behaviors 9 137-147. 19
- Botvin G. 1987. 19
- Teacher 19
- Report to the National Institute on 19
- A longitudinal study 19
- New York 19
- Academic Press. 19
- Ross A. 0. 19
- Principles procedures and empirical basi.s. 19
- New 19
- Adolescents at risk 20
- Condition 20
- Cond by Time 20
- Classification Means 20
- Time 20
- Posttest 20
- SPR 20
- Follow-up 20
- 4.61 20
- Pre 20
- Follow-up 20
- M Condition 5.51 M Time DF1 .52 M Time DF2 4.36 20
