|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study by Glick and Goldstein was to examine the effectiveness of aggression replacement training, a psychoeducational intervention, for reducing aggression in hostile adolescents.
METHODOLOGY:
The authors employed an experimental cross-sectional design with non-probability sampling for two separate studies. The first study consisted of an evaluation of 60 adolescent males in residence at a facility for boys aged 14 to 17 in New York. Crimes that had been committed included assault, burglary, auto theft, possession of stolen property, criminal trespass and drug use. The population was pre-tested on those qualities that the aggression replacement training was designed to change, was then randomly assigned to treatment or control groups, and was subsequently post-tested to evaluate change. Those in the control group then received the training, and were also subsequently tested. Test batteries were not described in the current paper. 24 youths were assigned to the treatment group, 24 to the control group which received brief instruction about motivation and improving their display of skilled behavior, and 12 to the control group receiving no treatment at all. Training involved structured learning training, a psychoeducational intervention to teach prosocial behaviors via modelling and role play; anger control training to teach inhibition of anger by identifying triggers and using self-evaluation techniques; and moral education, designed to raise the awareness of being fair and just and concerned for the rights of others via discussion of moral dilemmas. The 30 training sessions lasted for ten weeks. Analysis for this first study involved ANCOVA. The second study was a replication of the first, conducted at a facility for male juvenile serious offenders between 13 and 21 years of age. 51 subjects were evaluated in the same methods as describe above.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
For the first study, the authors found that those who had received the training changed significantly more in their overt behavior, and acquired significantly more structured learning skills, than did those in either of the two control groups. They also performed better in terms of frequency and intensity of acting out behavior, and in terms of impulsiveness. The subsequent provision of training to the two control groups led to similar results. The number and the severity of incidents had significantly decreased from the first stage to the second. By following youth who had been released back into the community, the authors found that those who had received training performed better in community functioning than those who did not receive any training. Results for the second study were similar to those of the first. Trained youth showed improvement in structured learning skills, and, unlike the first study, youth also showed a growth in moral reasoning skills. Possible explanations for this difference included varying group leaders, sequence effects, and personality and demographic differences between the two sets of subjects. Youth who had received the training also exhibited significant change in overt behavior, with more prosocial and constructive behaviors and lower impulsiveness. However, unlike the initial study, youth did not exhibit a reduction in frequency or intensity of acting out behavior. Possible explanations revolve around the locked, controlled nature of the second facility, such that base rates of acting out behavior were initially low, whereas in the first study, set in a more open facility, base rates were higher and therefore had room to decrease. The authors concluded that aggression replacement training provided a viable intervention for aggressive incarcerated adolescents.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors' primary recommendation was that further research be conducted to determine the effectiveness of aggression replacement training within the context of the community.
EVALUATION:
The authors present an informative examination of the role of aggression replacement training in reducing antisocial behavior patterns among incarcerated male juveniles. However, we cannot know exactly what types of behavior were included in the outcome measures of the study, as no description was provided. The study examined the effects of the training only for males - it would be interesting to investigate if the results were similar for female juvenile offenders. A discussion of the implications of the results would have been useful, as would have more thorough discussion of the results themselves. Nonetheless, the study provides a basis for further research into the effectiveness of this type of treatment for the incarcerated juvenile offender. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
KW - Behavior Modification
KW - Juvenile Male
KW - Juvenile Inmate
KW - Incarcerated
KW - Male Inmate
KW - Male Offender
KW - New York
KW - Juvenile Delinquency
KW - Delinquency Intervention
KW - Anger Intervention
KW - Aggression Intervention
KW - Psychoeducational Intervention
KW - Program Effectiveness
KW - Late Adolescence
KW - Early Adolescence
KW - Juvenile Aggression
KW - Juvenile Antisocial Behavior
KW - Juvenile Behavior
KW - Juvenile Treatment
KW - Aggression Treatment
KW - Behavior Treatment
KW - Treatment Program
KW - Treatment Outcome
KW - Program Evaluation
KW - Juvenile Anger
KW - Anger Management
KW - Social Skills Training
KW - Social Skills Development
KW - Prosocial Skills
KW - Juvenile Development
KW - Youth Development
KW - Moral Reasoning
KW - Intervention Program |