Coping Power is a school-based intervention for children between 9 and 15 years identified as having behavioural problems at school. Coping power is delivered jointly by a school counsellor and a trained Coping Power facilitator to groups of five to eight children via 24 to 36 group sessions that are delivered across two school years. Parents also attend 12 to 16 group sessions delivered by two Coping Power practitioners.
The information above is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.
8 to 11 years old
Individual
Coping Power is a school-based intervention for children identified by their teachers as having problematic classroom behaviour in Grades 5 and 6 of primary school.
Coping power is delivered jointly by a school counsellor and a trained Coping Power facilitator to groups of 5 to 8 children via 24 to 36 group sessions that are delivered across two school years. Parents also attend 12 to 16 group sessions delivered by two Coping Power practitioners.
Coping Power combines components delivered to the child in school with components offered to the parents through group-based training.
9 to 15 years
Disclaimer: The information in this section is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.
Science-based assumption
Substance misuse and criminal behaviour in adolescence can significantly diminish children’s life chances once they reach adulthood.
Science-based assumption
Impulsive and aggressive behaviours at school and in the classroom increase the risk of substance misuse and behavioural problems in secondary school.
Science-based assumption
Children identified as impulsive and aggressive by their teachers during primary school.
Intervention
Children learn strategies for managing their behaviour and emotions
Children learn to interact more positively with their peers
Parents learn strategies for rewarding positive child behaviour, establishing household rules and routines, improving family communication, and supporting their child’s social and emotional skills.
Short-term
Parents master strategies for improving family communication and encouraging positive child behaviour.
Medium-term
Child behaviour at home improves
Child behaviour at school improves.
Long-term
Children are less likely to engage in substance misuse and antisocial behaviour in adolescence and adulthood.
Children in the later primary school grades, identified by their teacher as displaying aggressive and disruptive behaviour.
The child component of Coping Power is delivered in 24 to 36 sessions of one-hour duration each by two practitioners to groups of children at school.
The parent component of Coping Power is delivered in 12 to 16 sessions of one-hour duration each by two practitioners to a group of parents.
During the intervention, children and parents engage in group discussion, role-play, and setting goals in school or home. They receive homework and positive feedback. Videos are also used in the sessions.
Child sessions include behavioural and personal goal setting, awareness of feelings, distraction techniques, relaxation methods, organisational skills, and refusal skills.
Parent sessions focus on rewarding appropriate child behaviour, giving effective instructions, establishing age-appropriate rules and expectations, applying consequences, and establishing good family communication.
School counsellors.
The practitioners have 32 hours of intervention training. Booster training of practitioners is recommended.
It is recommended that practitioners are supervised by one clinical supervisor, with 14 hours of intervention training.
Intervention fidelity is maintained through the following processes:
Contact person: Shane Jones
Email address: jones178@ua.edu
Website/s: www.copingpower.com
*Please note that this information may not be up to date. In this case, please visit the listed intervention website for up to date contact details.
Coping Power’s most rigorous evidence comes from two RCTs conducted in the United States consistent with Foundations’ Level 3 evidence strength threshold. Additional evidence from a US study consistent with Foundations’ Level 2 evidence qualifies Coping Power for a Level 3+ rating.
The studies observed statistically significant improvements in problematic and aggressive school behaviour and increases in prosocial behaviour lasting for up to one year post-intervention.
Reduced externalising behaviours (teacher-rated)
Post-intervention
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced externalising behaviours (parent-rated)
Post-intervention
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Improved social and academic behaviours
Post-intervention
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced assaultive behaviours
Post-intervention
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced expectations that aggressive behaviour would lead to positive outcomes
Post-intervention
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced delinquent behaviours
Long-term (1-year follow-up)
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
| Identified in search | 28 |
| Studies reviewed | 3 |
| Meeting the L2 threshold | 1 |
| Meeting the L3 threshold | 2 |
| Contributing to the L4 threshold | 0 |
| Ineligible | 25 |
| Study design | 3 arm RCT (only 2 arms are relevant to the intervention rating) |
| Country | United States |
| Sample characteristics | 531 children between 8 and 9 years old (recruited in 3rd grade). 65% of the screened sample were boys. |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities |
|
| Population risk factors | 30% most aggressive children as rated by teacher screening, with the top 2% having been excluded. |
| Timing | Baseline (pre-intervention), post-intervention, 2-year follow-up. |
| Child outcomes |
|
| Other outcomes | N/A |
| Study rating | 3 |
| Citations | Lochman, J.E., Boxmeyer, C., Powell, N., Qu, L., Wells, K. & Windle, M. (2009) Dissemination of the Coping Power program: Importance of intensity of counselor training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 77 (3), 397. |
| Study design | 4 arm RCT (only 2 arms are relevant to the intervention rating) |
| Country | United States |
| Sample characteristics | 245 children across 17 elementary schools in the US. The overall sample was comprised of a 2-to-1 boys-to-girls ratio. |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities |
|
| Population risk factors | 31% most-aggressive children as rated by fourth-grade teachers across 17 elementary schools. |
| Timing | Baseline (pre-intervention), T4 (1 year post-intervention, 3 years after baseline measure). |
| Child outcomes | Reduced antisocial behaviours |
| Other outcomes | N/A |
| Study rating | 3 |
| Citations | Study 2a: Lochman, J. E. & Wells, K. C. (2002) The Coping Power Program at the middle school transition: Universal and indicated prevention effects. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 16, 40–54. Study 2b: Lochman, J. E. & Wells, K. C. (2003) Effectiveness of the Coping Power program and of classroom intervention with aggressive children: Outcomes at a 1-year follow-up. Behavior Therapy. 34, 493–515. |
The following studies were identified for this intervention but did not count towards the intervention’s overall evidence rating. An intervention receives the same rating as its most robust study or studies.
Aitken, M., Waxman, J. A., MacDonald, K., & Andrade, B. F. (2018). Effect of comorbid psychopathology and conduct problem severity on response to a multi-component intervention for childhood disruptive behavior. Child Psychiatry & Human Development. 49 (6), 853–864.
Eiraldi, R., Mautone, J. A., Khanna, M. S., Power, T. J., Orapallo, A., Cacia, J., Schwartz, B. S., McCurdy, B., Keiffer, J., Paidipati, C., Kanine, R., Abraham, M., Tulio, S., Swift, L., Bressler, S. N., Cabello, B. & Jawad, A. F. (2018) Group CBT for externalizing disorders in urban schools: Effect of training strategy on treatment fidelity and child outcomes. Behavior Therapy. 49 (4), 538–550.
Helander, M., Lochman, J., Högström, J., Ljòtsson, B., Hellner, C. & Enebrink, P. (2018) The effect of adding Coping Power Program-Sweden to parent management training: Effects and moderators in a randomized controlled trial. Behavior Research and Therapy. 103, 43–52.
Jurecska, D. D., Hamilton, E. B. & Peterson, M. A. (2011) Effectiveness of the Coping Power Program in middle-school children with disruptive behaviors and hyperactivity difficulties. Support for Learning. 26, 168–172.
Lochman, J. E., Baden, R. E., Boxmeyer, C. L., Powell, N. P., Qu, L., Salekin, K. L. & Windle, M. (2014) Does a booster intervention augment the preventive effects of an abbreviated version of the Coping Power Program for aggressive children? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 42 (3), 367–381.
Lochman, J.E., Boxmeyer, C.L. Jones, S., Qu, L., Ewoldsen, D. & Nelson, W.M. III (2017) Testing the feasibility of a briefer school-based preventive intervention with aggressive children: A hybrid intervention with face-to-face and internet components. Journal of School Psychology. 62, 33–50.
Lochman, J. E., Boxmeyer, C., Powell, N., Roth, D. L. & Windle, M. (2006) Masked intervention effects: Analytic methods for addressing low dosage of intervention. New Directions for Evaluation. 110, 19–32.
Lochmann, J.E., FitzGerald, D.P., Gage, S.M., Kanaly, K.M., Whidby, J.M., Barry, T.D., Pardini, D.H. and McElory, H., 2019. Effects of social-cognitive intervention for aggressive deaf children: The Coping Power Program. JADARA, 35(2).
Lochman, J. E., Wells, K. C., Qu, L. & Chen, L. (2013) Three year follow-up of Coping Power intervention effects: Evidence of neighborhood moderation? Prevention Science. 14 (4), 364–376.
Ludmer, J. A., Sanches, M., Propp, L., & Andrade, B. F. (2018). Comparing the multicomponent Coping Power Program to individualized parent–child treatment for improving the parenting efficacy and satisfaction of parents of children with conduct problems. Child Psychiatry and Human Development. 49, 100–108.
McDaniel, S. C., Lochman, J. E., Tomek, S., Powell, N., Irwin, A. & Kerr, S. (2018) Reducing levels of behavioral risk in late elementary school: A comparison of two targeted interventions. Behavioral Disorders. 43, 370–382.
Muratori, P., Bertacchi, I., Catone, G., Mannucci, F., Nocentini, A., Pisano, S. & Lochman, J. E. (2020) Coping Power Universal for middle school students: The first efficacy study. Journal of Adolescence. 79, 49–58.
Muratori, P., Bertacchi, I., Giuli, C., Lombardi, L., Bonetti, S., Nocentini, A., … & Lochman, J. E. (2015) First adaptation of coping power program as a classroom-based prevention intervention on aggressive behaviors among elementary school children. Prevention Science. 16 (3), 432–439.
Muratori, P., Bertacchi, I., Giuli, C., Nocentini, A. & Lochman, J. E. (2017) Implementing coping power adapted as a universal prevention program in Italian primary schools: A randomized control trial. Prevention Science. 18 (7), 754–761.
Muratori, P., Bertacchi, I., Giuli, C., Nocentini, A., Ruglioni, L. & Lochman, J. E. (2016) Coping Power adapted as universal prevention program: Mid term effects on children’s behavioral difficulties and academic grades. The Journal of Primary Prevention. 37 (4), 389–401.
Muratori, P., Giofrè, D., Bertacchi, I., Darini, A., Giuli, C., Lai, E. … & Mammarella, I. (2021) Testing the efficacy of Coping Power Universal on behavioral problems and pre-academic skills in preschoolers. Early Childhood Education Journal. 1–13.
Muratori, P., Giuli, C., Bertacchi, I., Orsolini, L., Ruglioni, L. & Lochman, J. E. (2017) Coping power for Excluded preschool‐aged children: A pilot randomized control trial study. Early Intervention in Psychiatry. 11 (6), 532-538.
Muratori, P., Milone, A., Levantini, V., Ruglioni, L., Lambruschi, F., Pisano, S., … & Lochman, J. E. (2019) Six-year outcome for children with ODD or CD treated with the Coping Power program. Psychiatry Research. 271, 454–458.
Mushtaq, A., Lochman, J. E., Tariq, P. N. & Sabih, F. (2017) Preliminary effectiveness study of Coping Power program for aggressive children in Pakistan. Prevention Science. 18 (7), 762–771.
Nystrand, C., Helander, M., Enebrink, P., Feldman, I. & Sampaio, F. (2020) Adding the Coping Power Program to parent management training: The costeffectiveness of stacking interventions for children with disruptive behaviour disorders. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 30, 1603–1614.
Peterson, M. A., Hamilton, E. B. & Russell, A. D. (2009) Starting well: Facilitating the middle school transition. Journal of Applied School Psychology. 25 (3), 286–304.
Vanzin, L., Colombo, P., Valli, A., Mauri, V., Ceccarelli, S. B., Pozzi, M., … & Nobile, M. (2018) The effectiveness of coping power program for ADHD: An observational outcome study. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 27 (11), 3554–3563.
van de Wiel, N. M. H., Matthys, W., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Maassen, G. H., Lochman, J. E. & van Engeland, H. (2007) The effectiveness of an experimental treatment when compared to care as usual depends on the type of care as usual. Behavior Modification. 31, 298–312.
Zonnevylle-Bender, M., Matthys, W., van de Wiel, N. M. H. & Lochman, J. E. (2007) Preventive effects of treatment of disruptive behavior disorder in middle childhood on substance use and delinquent behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 46 (1), 33–39.
Note on provider involvement: This provider has agreed to Foundations’ terms of reference (or the Early Intervention Foundation's terms of reference), and the assessment has been conducted and published with the full cooperation of the intervention provider.
Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.
Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.
Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.
Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.
Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.
Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.
Click here for more information.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.
Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.
Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.
Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.
Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.
Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.
Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.
Click here for more information.
