- Email: [email protected]
An evaluation of parent training procedures designed to alter inappropriate aggressive behavior of boys
BEHAVIOR THERAPY ( 1 9 7 4 ) 5, 215-221
An Evaluation of Parent Training Procedures Designed to Alter Inappropriate Aggressive Behavior of Boys N. A. WILTZ AND G. R. PATTERSON1'2'3 University of Oregon and Oregon Research Institute The effectiveness of training parents in behavior-modification techniques to alter inappropriately aggressive behavior of boys aged 6--14 was evaluated. Six boys designated a treatment group were matched on the bases of age, socioeconomic status, and mean and variance of inappropriate aggressive behavior with a control group. Parents of treatment group boys were taught social learning procedures for 5 weeks. Parents of the control group children received no training. Observers recorded the rates of deviant behaviors in family interactions within the home for both groups. It was found that the parent's application of the training resulted in a significant decrease in the rate of deviant behavior of children in this group. Children in the control group showed an increase of inappropriate behaviors during the comparable period. T h e use of p a r e n t s as t r e a t m e n t a g e n t s in d e a l i n g w i t h p r o b l e m s of t h e i r o w n c h i l d r e n is n o t n e w ( e l B o n n a r d , 1950; FUehs, 1957). By now, t h e s e t e c h n i q u e s h a v e an e s t a b l i s h e d p o t e n t i a l w i t h a w i d e v a r i e t y of c h i l d r e n a n d p r o b l e m s ( s e e r e v i e w s b y G e l f a n d & H a r t m a n n , 1968; G r o s s b e r g , 1964; a n d Pawlieki, 1970). As t h e s e r e v i e w e r s a n d others, notably Paul (1967), have suggested certain methodological requirem e n t s m u s t b e m e t p r i o r to e v a l u a t i o n of t h e s e p r o c e d u r e s . T h e s e i n c l u d e 1 This study was conducted at the Oregon Research Institute; the senior author submitted an earlier version in partial fulfillment for the requirements of a doctoral degree in the College of Education. The project was supported by PHS 13330-01 and -02, and MH 15985-02. Computing assistance was obtained from the Health Sciences Computing Facility, U.C.L.A., sponsored by NTH grant ER-3. Robert J. Hunner assisted with the editing of the original manuscript. The writers thank Roberta Ray, J. Cobb, and D. Shaw for their assistance in both designing and carrying out the study. We are also indebted to the cadre of observers for their dedication in obtaining high quality data: Lavella Gather, Sue Robba, Shirley Cole, Rachael C0ndon, Irene Troup, and Jonni Johnson. "~N. A. Wiltz is now Chief Psychologist, Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Requests for reprints should be sent to N. A. Wiltz, Child Development and Mental Retardation Center, WJ-10, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98196. 215 Copyright O 1974 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
216
WILrZ AND PATTERSON
the use of a control group, independent measures of outcome, and follow-up evaluation. The investigation reported here utilizes direct observation of six children in a t r e a t m e n t g r o u p a n d six m a t c h e d u n t r e a t e d controls to e v a l u a t e c h a n g e s in t h e r a t e of d e v i a n t b e h a v i o r s . T h e p a r e n t s of t h e t r e a t m e n t group (mothers and fathers) were taught the concepts, language, datac o l l e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e s , a n d skills n e c e s s a r y to p l a n a n d c a r r y o u t b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n p r o g r a m s . P a r e n t s in t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p r e c e i v e d no i n s t r u c t i o n w h a t s o e v e r . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t p a r e n t t r a i n i n g over a p e r i o d of 5 w e e k s w o u l d e n a b l e t h e t r e a t m e n t g r o u p p a r e n t s to a l t e r t h o s e p r o b l e m b e h a v i o r s i d e n t i f i e d as specific t a r g e t s in t h e i r c h i l d r e n a n d t h a t t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p c h i l d r e n w o u l d s h o w no c h a n g e in r a t e of d e v i a n t b e haviors. I t w a s f u r t h e r h y p o t h e s i z e d that, w i t h i n t h e first 5 w e e k s of training, the treatment group parents would generalize the procedures to m o d i f y other, n o n t a r g e t e d , d e v i a n t b e h a v i o r s . METHOD
Subjects Sixteen boys were referred to the Clinic from juvenile court, school counselors, and mental health specialists for treatment of their aggressive behavior. Six of the 16 boys were assigned to the treatment group. An additional six, closely matched to the treatment group subjects on the bases of age, socioeconomic status, and the means and variances of deviant behavior as determined by baseline (pretreatment) observations, were assigned to the control group. The mean age of the treatment group was 9.8 years, and of the control group 9.3 years. The median occupational level for the head-of-household in both groups was Class 4 based on the classification system of Hollingshead and Redlich (1958). The mean baseline rate per minute of deviant behaviors for the treatment group was 0.5.8 responses, and for the control group, 0.45. This difference was not statistically significant.
Parent Training Procedures All parents were informed of the experimental nature of the project and the observation procedure explained. Parents of the control group were told there would be a 5-week delay between the time when observations were made and when treatment would begin. The treatment training program (see Patterson, Ray, & Shaw, 1968; Patterson, Cobb, & Ray, 1973, for the details ) involved the following learning experiences: (1) To gain an understanding of the concepts, language, and data collection skills necessary to plan and carry out contingency management programs, the parents were asked to read the programmed text, Living With Children, by Patterson and Gullion (1968). All programs used in treatment were based on the social learning principles outlined in this book. (2) To identify a single behavior that would be appropriate for the parents to change through behavioral-modification techniques, a private interview was scheduled upon completion of (1) above. Once a behavior for change was selected, specific instructions were given for observing and counting the frequency
EVALUATION O F P A R E N T TRAINING
2,17
of the behavior in the home. (3) When a set of parents had demonstrated their willingness and ability to collect baseline data and to report it to the therapist through daily contact by phone, they were in;cited to join a group of other parents engaged in behavior-modification programs for their children. The group meetings were attended by no more than five sets of parents and up to four therapists. Each therapist spent a timed 30 rain discussing the programs designed for the parents he was counseling. The other therapists and parents attending were free to ask questions and make suggestions about child management and data-collection problems. At the end of the 30 rain the parents were free to stay or leave and the next set of parents discussed their program. The group meetings lasted 5 weeks. Three goals were set by the therapists: First, that the parents reduce the selected target behavior to 30% of baseline rate. Week by week progress was charted on a graph of targeted behavior kept by each set of parents. During the 5 weeks of group meetings, suggestions and recommendations for problem attention were made to the parents, both by therapists and other parents, based on these graphs. Second, to have each set of parents record a second target behavior and modify it independently of direction. It was felt that training was not complete until parents could demonstrate competence in applying the principles on their own. Parents were asked to set up and run the second program using the experience gained in the group and through reading the book. Other parents in the group could make suggestions, however. Third, to help another set of parents with their program by suggestions in the group meeting. They were encouraged to apply their learning to the problems of others as a demonstration that they understood the social learning principles.
Observation Procedures Observations were made by five observers trained to reach a criterion of 70~ agreement in using a 29-category code system. This code system was designed to provide a sequential account of events which control social behavior, including the identification of the individual with whom the subject is interacting, the response made by that individual, the behavior of the subject, and the consequences from the other, nonsubject person which follow that behavior. The code, evolved from an earlier one (Reid, 1967), is made up of 29 behavioral events operationally defined and sufficiently inclusive to provide a classification scheme for most social behaviors observed in families. Deviant code categories include: yell, tease, cry, whine, command negative, noncompliance, negative physical contact, humiliation, negativism, destructiveness, and disapproval. This code is described in detail by Patterson, Ray, Shaw and Cobb (1969). Agreement between observers was measured by comparison of the codes of observed behavior and the order of their occurrence. The agreement was calculated for each 30 sec of observation. All observers participated in a retraining session each week which involved video tapes of a family not involved in treatment or control. Observations were made when the whole family was present in the home, usually between the hours of 5 and 7 in the evening; and each family was observed for 10 baseline sessions prior to placement in either the experimental or the control group. Over this period of time, 100 min of observation data were collected per family member. Observation "probes" consisting of 2 days of observation were made in the treatment group after 5 weeks, and for the control families after they had been on the waiting list 5 weeks. During this probe, the deviant child was observed for 20 rain and the other family members for 5. Each observer used a clipboard with an attached 30-see interval timer to provide
218
WILTZ AND PATTERSON
TABLE 1 Targeted Deviant Behaviors for Experimental (E) and Control (C) Subjects Experimental subjects
Control subjects
E~
Negative commands Disapproval Noncompliance
C1
Noncompliance
E2
DisapprovM Noncompliance Physical negative Teasing Yelling
C2
Humiliation Noncompliance Negative Yelling
E3
Destructive Non compli an ee
C~
Noncompliance Negative Physical negative Teasing Yelling
E4
Command negative Noncompliance Physical negative
C4
Humiliation Noncompliance Negative Yelling
E~
Humiliation Noncompliance
C~
Disapproval Negative Teasing
E~
Noncompliance Negative Physical negative Teasing Yelling
Ca
Noncompliance
both mobility while observing and a method of obtaining constant time segments of observation. The observers recorded behaviors of the subject and responses to that behavior for 10 30-sec segments of 5 rain of observation. Each family member was observed for an equal period of time. During baseline, 10 rain of observation of each person were recorded; during the probe sessions procedures were the same, but the total observation time for the deviant child was 20 rain. Family members were randomly assigned to the order in which they were to be observed. During the study, the regular observer data were checked against a "calibrator's" observations to provide an independent measure of reliability. In each case, percent agreement for correctness of code category and for sequence of coding were the criteria. Checks for agreement were obtained by having the calibrator, who functioned independently of all other aspects of the study, accompany the regular observer during a scheduled observation. Seven checks were made on each observer over the course of the study; and the calibrating observer's agreement with the four observers ranged from 46 to 88% with a mean of 70.7. Low reliability scores were randomly distributed over the course of the study.
EVALUATION OF PARENT TRAINING
219
Control o
o
.3-
.2-
i
i
B aseline
Five-weeks
FIa. 1. Mean rate of targeted deviant behavior for experimental and control groups. RESULTS From the 13 deviant behavior codes, those that the parents chose to
modify were termed targeted and the remainder nontargeted; control parents chose target behaviors similarly but did not work on them ( T a b l e 1). Figure 1 compares the treatment and control subjects on targeted deviant behaviors. Decrease of deviant behavior in the experimental group was statistically significant (p < .05, t = 2.35). Although mean experimental subject nontargeted deviant behavior decreased over the 5 weeks, there was no statistically significant support for the hypothesis that parents would reduce nontargeted behaviors in subjects (see Fig. 2). .6-
.5
.3o/"~ontrol .2
.I-
i
Baseline
i
Five weeks
FIe. 2. Mean rate o£ non-targeted deviant behavior for experimental and control groups.
220
wma-z AND PATTEnSON DISCUSSION
I t is p o s s i b l e to t r a i n families to a l t e r t h e d e v i a n t b e h a v i o r of t h e i r a g g r e s s i v e boys, a n d t h e first 4 or 5 w e e k s of t r a i n i n g p r o d u c e effects w h i c h a r e n o t o b t a i n e d b y m e r e l y p l a c i n g t h e f a m i l y on a w a i t i n g list. T h e findings r u n p a r a l l e l to t h e e a r l i e r w o r k of T h o r n e , T h a r p , a n d W e l z e l ( 1 9 6 9 ) , S c h w i t z g e b e l ( 1 9 6 7 ) , a n d S t u a r t ( 1 9 6 9 ) , w h i c h stress a n e v o l v i n g t e c h n o l o g y w h i c h focuses on t h e t r e a t m e n t of t h e a g g r e s s i v e a n t i s o c i a l c h i l d in t h e c o m m u n i t y setting. 4 REFERENCES BONNArtD, A. The mother as therapist, in a case of obsessional neurosis. In R. S. Eissler, Freud, A., Hartmans, H., & Kris, E. (Eds.), The psychoanal~ie study of the child. Vol. 5. New York: International Universities Press, Inc., 1950. Pp. 391--408. FucrIs, N. R. Play therapy at home. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1957, 3, 89.-95. GF.LFAND, D. M., & HAnTMANN, D. P. Behavior therapy with children: A review and evaluation of research methodology. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 62, 204215. GROSSBEnC, J. M. Behavior therapy: a review. Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 62, 73-88. HOLLINGSHEAD, A. B., & REDLICH, F. C. Social class and mental illness. New York: Wiley, 1958. PATTERSON, G. R., & GULL1ON, M. E. Living with children: New methods for parents and teachers. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press, 1968. PATTERSON, G. R., BAY, R. S., & SrIAW, D. A. Direct intervention in families of deviant children. Oregon Research Institute Research Bulletin, 1968, 8, PATTEnSO~, G. R., RAY, R. S., SrIAW, D. A., & COBB, J. A. A manual for coding family interactions. ASIS National Auxiliary Publications Service c/o CMM Information Service Inc., 909 Third Ave., New York, N.Y., 10022. Document No. D1234. PATTERSON',G. R., COBB, J. A., & RAY, a. S. A social engineering technology for retraining aggressive boys. In H. E. Adams and I. P. Unikel (Eds.), Issues and trends in behavior therapy. Springfield, IL.: Charles C Thomas, 1973. Pp. 139-224. PAUL, G. L. Strategy of outcome research in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31, 109-118. PAWLmKI, R. Behaviour-therapy research with children: A critical review. Canadian lournal of Behavioural Science, 1970, 2, 163-173. 4 The necessity for a follow-up evaluation of the techniques reported here is recognized. Due to the nature of the control group population, this requirement could not be met. The control group families were on the "waiting list" for almost 2 months, from initial referral to the completion of the 5 weeks of training for the treatment group parents. The decision to terminate their "control" status was a clinical one, which recognized both the high level of concern that these families were experiencing due to their boys" behavior and the need for these boys to enter treatment at the earliest possible moment.
EVALUATION OF PARENT TRAINING
221
REID, J. B. Reciprocity in family interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1967. SCHWITZGEBEL, R. L. Short-term operant conditioning of adolescent offenders on socially relevant variables. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1967, 38, 54-63. STUART, R. Family intervention for delinquent children. Paper presented at the Southern California Conference on Behavior Modification, Los Angeles, California, October, 1969. THORNE, G. L., TttARP, R. G., & WETZEL, R. Behavior modification techniques: New tools for probation officers. Federal Probation, 1967, 31, 21-26.
An Evaluation of Parent Training Procedures Designed to Alter Inappropriate Aggressive Behavior of Boys N. A. WILTZ AND G. R. PATTERSON1'2'3 University of Oregon and Oregon Research Institute The effectiveness of training parents in behavior-modification techniques to alter inappropriately aggressive behavior of boys aged 6--14 was evaluated. Six boys designated a treatment group were matched on the bases of age, socioeconomic status, and mean and variance of inappropriate aggressive behavior with a control group. Parents of treatment group boys were taught social learning procedures for 5 weeks. Parents of the control group children received no training. Observers recorded the rates of deviant behaviors in family interactions within the home for both groups. It was found that the parent's application of the training resulted in a significant decrease in the rate of deviant behavior of children in this group. Children in the control group showed an increase of inappropriate behaviors during the comparable period. T h e use of p a r e n t s as t r e a t m e n t a g e n t s in d e a l i n g w i t h p r o b l e m s of t h e i r o w n c h i l d r e n is n o t n e w ( e l B o n n a r d , 1950; FUehs, 1957). By now, t h e s e t e c h n i q u e s h a v e an e s t a b l i s h e d p o t e n t i a l w i t h a w i d e v a r i e t y of c h i l d r e n a n d p r o b l e m s ( s e e r e v i e w s b y G e l f a n d & H a r t m a n n , 1968; G r o s s b e r g , 1964; a n d Pawlieki, 1970). As t h e s e r e v i e w e r s a n d others, notably Paul (1967), have suggested certain methodological requirem e n t s m u s t b e m e t p r i o r to e v a l u a t i o n of t h e s e p r o c e d u r e s . T h e s e i n c l u d e 1 This study was conducted at the Oregon Research Institute; the senior author submitted an earlier version in partial fulfillment for the requirements of a doctoral degree in the College of Education. The project was supported by PHS 13330-01 and -02, and MH 15985-02. Computing assistance was obtained from the Health Sciences Computing Facility, U.C.L.A., sponsored by NTH grant ER-3. Robert J. Hunner assisted with the editing of the original manuscript. The writers thank Roberta Ray, J. Cobb, and D. Shaw for their assistance in both designing and carrying out the study. We are also indebted to the cadre of observers for their dedication in obtaining high quality data: Lavella Gather, Sue Robba, Shirley Cole, Rachael C0ndon, Irene Troup, and Jonni Johnson. "~N. A. Wiltz is now Chief Psychologist, Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Requests for reprints should be sent to N. A. Wiltz, Child Development and Mental Retardation Center, WJ-10, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98196. 215 Copyright O 1974 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
216
WILrZ AND PATTERSON
the use of a control group, independent measures of outcome, and follow-up evaluation. The investigation reported here utilizes direct observation of six children in a t r e a t m e n t g r o u p a n d six m a t c h e d u n t r e a t e d controls to e v a l u a t e c h a n g e s in t h e r a t e of d e v i a n t b e h a v i o r s . T h e p a r e n t s of t h e t r e a t m e n t group (mothers and fathers) were taught the concepts, language, datac o l l e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e s , a n d skills n e c e s s a r y to p l a n a n d c a r r y o u t b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n p r o g r a m s . P a r e n t s in t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p r e c e i v e d no i n s t r u c t i o n w h a t s o e v e r . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t p a r e n t t r a i n i n g over a p e r i o d of 5 w e e k s w o u l d e n a b l e t h e t r e a t m e n t g r o u p p a r e n t s to a l t e r t h o s e p r o b l e m b e h a v i o r s i d e n t i f i e d as specific t a r g e t s in t h e i r c h i l d r e n a n d t h a t t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p c h i l d r e n w o u l d s h o w no c h a n g e in r a t e of d e v i a n t b e haviors. I t w a s f u r t h e r h y p o t h e s i z e d that, w i t h i n t h e first 5 w e e k s of training, the treatment group parents would generalize the procedures to m o d i f y other, n o n t a r g e t e d , d e v i a n t b e h a v i o r s . METHOD
Subjects Sixteen boys were referred to the Clinic from juvenile court, school counselors, and mental health specialists for treatment of their aggressive behavior. Six of the 16 boys were assigned to the treatment group. An additional six, closely matched to the treatment group subjects on the bases of age, socioeconomic status, and the means and variances of deviant behavior as determined by baseline (pretreatment) observations, were assigned to the control group. The mean age of the treatment group was 9.8 years, and of the control group 9.3 years. The median occupational level for the head-of-household in both groups was Class 4 based on the classification system of Hollingshead and Redlich (1958). The mean baseline rate per minute of deviant behaviors for the treatment group was 0.5.8 responses, and for the control group, 0.45. This difference was not statistically significant.
Parent Training Procedures All parents were informed of the experimental nature of the project and the observation procedure explained. Parents of the control group were told there would be a 5-week delay between the time when observations were made and when treatment would begin. The treatment training program (see Patterson, Ray, & Shaw, 1968; Patterson, Cobb, & Ray, 1973, for the details ) involved the following learning experiences: (1) To gain an understanding of the concepts, language, and data collection skills necessary to plan and carry out contingency management programs, the parents were asked to read the programmed text, Living With Children, by Patterson and Gullion (1968). All programs used in treatment were based on the social learning principles outlined in this book. (2) To identify a single behavior that would be appropriate for the parents to change through behavioral-modification techniques, a private interview was scheduled upon completion of (1) above. Once a behavior for change was selected, specific instructions were given for observing and counting the frequency
EVALUATION O F P A R E N T TRAINING
2,17
of the behavior in the home. (3) When a set of parents had demonstrated their willingness and ability to collect baseline data and to report it to the therapist through daily contact by phone, they were in;cited to join a group of other parents engaged in behavior-modification programs for their children. The group meetings were attended by no more than five sets of parents and up to four therapists. Each therapist spent a timed 30 rain discussing the programs designed for the parents he was counseling. The other therapists and parents attending were free to ask questions and make suggestions about child management and data-collection problems. At the end of the 30 rain the parents were free to stay or leave and the next set of parents discussed their program. The group meetings lasted 5 weeks. Three goals were set by the therapists: First, that the parents reduce the selected target behavior to 30% of baseline rate. Week by week progress was charted on a graph of targeted behavior kept by each set of parents. During the 5 weeks of group meetings, suggestions and recommendations for problem attention were made to the parents, both by therapists and other parents, based on these graphs. Second, to have each set of parents record a second target behavior and modify it independently of direction. It was felt that training was not complete until parents could demonstrate competence in applying the principles on their own. Parents were asked to set up and run the second program using the experience gained in the group and through reading the book. Other parents in the group could make suggestions, however. Third, to help another set of parents with their program by suggestions in the group meeting. They were encouraged to apply their learning to the problems of others as a demonstration that they understood the social learning principles.
Observation Procedures Observations were made by five observers trained to reach a criterion of 70~ agreement in using a 29-category code system. This code system was designed to provide a sequential account of events which control social behavior, including the identification of the individual with whom the subject is interacting, the response made by that individual, the behavior of the subject, and the consequences from the other, nonsubject person which follow that behavior. The code, evolved from an earlier one (Reid, 1967), is made up of 29 behavioral events operationally defined and sufficiently inclusive to provide a classification scheme for most social behaviors observed in families. Deviant code categories include: yell, tease, cry, whine, command negative, noncompliance, negative physical contact, humiliation, negativism, destructiveness, and disapproval. This code is described in detail by Patterson, Ray, Shaw and Cobb (1969). Agreement between observers was measured by comparison of the codes of observed behavior and the order of their occurrence. The agreement was calculated for each 30 sec of observation. All observers participated in a retraining session each week which involved video tapes of a family not involved in treatment or control. Observations were made when the whole family was present in the home, usually between the hours of 5 and 7 in the evening; and each family was observed for 10 baseline sessions prior to placement in either the experimental or the control group. Over this period of time, 100 min of observation data were collected per family member. Observation "probes" consisting of 2 days of observation were made in the treatment group after 5 weeks, and for the control families after they had been on the waiting list 5 weeks. During this probe, the deviant child was observed for 20 rain and the other family members for 5. Each observer used a clipboard with an attached 30-see interval timer to provide
218
WILTZ AND PATTERSON
TABLE 1 Targeted Deviant Behaviors for Experimental (E) and Control (C) Subjects Experimental subjects
Control subjects
E~
Negative commands Disapproval Noncompliance
C1
Noncompliance
E2
DisapprovM Noncompliance Physical negative Teasing Yelling
C2
Humiliation Noncompliance Negative Yelling
E3
Destructive Non compli an ee
C~
Noncompliance Negative Physical negative Teasing Yelling
E4
Command negative Noncompliance Physical negative
C4
Humiliation Noncompliance Negative Yelling
E~
Humiliation Noncompliance
C~
Disapproval Negative Teasing
E~
Noncompliance Negative Physical negative Teasing Yelling
Ca
Noncompliance
both mobility while observing and a method of obtaining constant time segments of observation. The observers recorded behaviors of the subject and responses to that behavior for 10 30-sec segments of 5 rain of observation. Each family member was observed for an equal period of time. During baseline, 10 rain of observation of each person were recorded; during the probe sessions procedures were the same, but the total observation time for the deviant child was 20 rain. Family members were randomly assigned to the order in which they were to be observed. During the study, the regular observer data were checked against a "calibrator's" observations to provide an independent measure of reliability. In each case, percent agreement for correctness of code category and for sequence of coding were the criteria. Checks for agreement were obtained by having the calibrator, who functioned independently of all other aspects of the study, accompany the regular observer during a scheduled observation. Seven checks were made on each observer over the course of the study; and the calibrating observer's agreement with the four observers ranged from 46 to 88% with a mean of 70.7. Low reliability scores were randomly distributed over the course of the study.
EVALUATION OF PARENT TRAINING
219
Control o
o
.3-
.2-
i
i
B aseline
Five-weeks
FIa. 1. Mean rate of targeted deviant behavior for experimental and control groups. RESULTS From the 13 deviant behavior codes, those that the parents chose to
modify were termed targeted and the remainder nontargeted; control parents chose target behaviors similarly but did not work on them ( T a b l e 1). Figure 1 compares the treatment and control subjects on targeted deviant behaviors. Decrease of deviant behavior in the experimental group was statistically significant (p < .05, t = 2.35). Although mean experimental subject nontargeted deviant behavior decreased over the 5 weeks, there was no statistically significant support for the hypothesis that parents would reduce nontargeted behaviors in subjects (see Fig. 2). .6-
.5
.3o/"~ontrol .2
.I-
i
Baseline
i
Five weeks
FIe. 2. Mean rate o£ non-targeted deviant behavior for experimental and control groups.
220
wma-z AND PATTEnSON DISCUSSION
I t is p o s s i b l e to t r a i n families to a l t e r t h e d e v i a n t b e h a v i o r of t h e i r a g g r e s s i v e boys, a n d t h e first 4 or 5 w e e k s of t r a i n i n g p r o d u c e effects w h i c h a r e n o t o b t a i n e d b y m e r e l y p l a c i n g t h e f a m i l y on a w a i t i n g list. T h e findings r u n p a r a l l e l to t h e e a r l i e r w o r k of T h o r n e , T h a r p , a n d W e l z e l ( 1 9 6 9 ) , S c h w i t z g e b e l ( 1 9 6 7 ) , a n d S t u a r t ( 1 9 6 9 ) , w h i c h stress a n e v o l v i n g t e c h n o l o g y w h i c h focuses on t h e t r e a t m e n t of t h e a g g r e s s i v e a n t i s o c i a l c h i l d in t h e c o m m u n i t y setting. 4 REFERENCES BONNArtD, A. The mother as therapist, in a case of obsessional neurosis. In R. S. Eissler, Freud, A., Hartmans, H., & Kris, E. (Eds.), The psychoanal~ie study of the child. Vol. 5. New York: International Universities Press, Inc., 1950. Pp. 391--408. FucrIs, N. R. Play therapy at home. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1957, 3, 89.-95. GF.LFAND, D. M., & HAnTMANN, D. P. Behavior therapy with children: A review and evaluation of research methodology. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 62, 204215. GROSSBEnC, J. M. Behavior therapy: a review. Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 62, 73-88. HOLLINGSHEAD, A. B., & REDLICH, F. C. Social class and mental illness. New York: Wiley, 1958. PATTERSON, G. R., & GULL1ON, M. E. Living with children: New methods for parents and teachers. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press, 1968. PATTERSON, G. R., BAY, R. S., & SrIAW, D. A. Direct intervention in families of deviant children. Oregon Research Institute Research Bulletin, 1968, 8, PATTEnSO~, G. R., RAY, R. S., SrIAW, D. A., & COBB, J. A. A manual for coding family interactions. ASIS National Auxiliary Publications Service c/o CMM Information Service Inc., 909 Third Ave., New York, N.Y., 10022. Document No. D1234. PATTERSON',G. R., COBB, J. A., & RAY, a. S. A social engineering technology for retraining aggressive boys. In H. E. Adams and I. P. Unikel (Eds.), Issues and trends in behavior therapy. Springfield, IL.: Charles C Thomas, 1973. Pp. 139-224. PAUL, G. L. Strategy of outcome research in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31, 109-118. PAWLmKI, R. Behaviour-therapy research with children: A critical review. Canadian lournal of Behavioural Science, 1970, 2, 163-173. 4 The necessity for a follow-up evaluation of the techniques reported here is recognized. Due to the nature of the control group population, this requirement could not be met. The control group families were on the "waiting list" for almost 2 months, from initial referral to the completion of the 5 weeks of training for the treatment group parents. The decision to terminate their "control" status was a clinical one, which recognized both the high level of concern that these families were experiencing due to their boys" behavior and the need for these boys to enter treatment at the earliest possible moment.
EVALUATION OF PARENT TRAINING
221
REID, J. B. Reciprocity in family interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1967. SCHWITZGEBEL, R. L. Short-term operant conditioning of adolescent offenders on socially relevant variables. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1967, 38, 54-63. STUART, R. Family intervention for delinquent children. Paper presented at the Southern California Conference on Behavior Modification, Los Angeles, California, October, 1969. THORNE, G. L., TttARP, R. G., & WETZEL, R. Behavior modification techniques: New tools for probation officers. Federal Probation, 1967, 31, 21-26.