General Responsivity and Evidence-Based Treatment: Individual and Program Predictors of Treatment Outcomes during Adolescent Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment
AdvisorHiller, Matthew L.
Committee memberBelenko, Steven R.
Roman, Caterina Gouvis, 1966-
Permanent link to this recordhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12613/3963
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractSince it was first articulated, the Risk-Need-Responsivity model (RNR; Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990) has been extensively researched and is regarded as an empirically supported model for providing effective correctional treatment. It is comprised of three core principles: the risk principle, which provides direction for who should receive treatment; the need principle, which identifies intermediate treatment targets; and the responsivity principle, which states how treatment programs should be structured. The RNR model is purported to be relevant for all offender populations, including female offenders (Dowden & Andrews, 1999a), juvenile offenders (Dowden & Andrews, 1999b), violent offenders (Dowden & Andrews, 2000), and sexual offenders (Hanson, Bourgon, Helmus, & Hogdson, 2009). Yet, the majority of RNR research has examined the risk and need principles, and the responsivity principle remains understudied. The responsivity principle includes two sub-principles: general and specific (Andrews, & Bonta, 2010). The current research explored the general responsivity principle, which states that programs should use theoretically relevant models for individual change, specifically cognitive-behavioral and cognitive-social learning models (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). The following techniques are consistent with these models: "role-playing, modeling, repeated practice of alternative behaviors, cognitive restructuring to modify thoughts/emotions, skills building, or reinforcement" (Andrews & Bonta, 2010, p. 50). Despite empirical support, the RNR model has received minimal application to juveniles, and it has not been widely tested in the substance abuse treatment context. Additionally, it is not clear whether adherence to the RNR model is relevant for reducing substance use outcomes in youth. Adolescent substance abuse treatment programs were designed to address substance use among juveniles, and have been widely researched to determine their effectiveness; yet their effectiveness remains understudied among juvenile offenders. These studies include examinations of specific treatment interventions used, such as Multisystemic Therapy. Many of these interventions are considered to be "evidence-based treatment" (EBT), but there is a wide variety of repositories that classify interventions as "evidence-based" with varying criteria used to classify them. The juvenile drug treatment court model (JDTC) was specifically developed to address substance use and crime among juvenile offenders; however, findings from empirical studies have not demonstrated a strong treatment effect. To address these gaps in the literature, secondary analyses were conducted on data collected from 132 adolescent outpatient substance abuse treatment programs (AOPs) and 10 juvenile drug treatment courts nationwide. This research was an application of the general responsivity principle in the AOP and JDTC context to determine the impact of responsivity adherence on the odds of rearrest and substance use severity. The analyses also included an examination of evidence-based treatment (EBT) in both samples to determine the influence of EBT use scores on the odds of rearrests and substance use severity scores. To examine the AOP sample, multilevel models were used to examine the individual- and program-level impact of responsivity adherence and EBT use. To examine the JDTC sample, multivariate analyses were used to examine the individual-level impact of responsivity adherence and EBT use. Overall, responsivity adherence was not significantly associated with rearrests among AOP participants, nor was it significantly associated with substance use severity scores. Additionally, the odds of rearrest were significantly greater among individuals who received interventions with a higher EBT use score; though, there was no association between the average EBT use scores across programs and the odds of rearrest. There was no significant association between individual- and program-level EBT use scores and substance use severity. Among JDTC participants, an increase in responsivity adherence was associated with an increase in the odds of rearrest and substance use severity. A similar association emerged between EBT use scores and both outcomes, wherein increases in EBT use scores were significantly associated with an increase in the odds of rearrest and substance use severity. The results of the analyses suggest the need for further specification of both general responsivity adherence and "evidence-based" treatment for use in future research and theory; specifically, further elaboration of the general responsivity-adherent techniques and clear criteria for classifying interventions as "evidence-based treatment." The findings also imply that certain types of treatment interventions are more compatible with the JDTC model than other interventions. Additional analyses suggest the possibility that general responsivity adherence and evidence-based treatment may not be unique constructs. Future research may benefit through exploring evidence-based treatment as a criterion for adherence to the general responsivity principle.
ADA complianceFor Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, including help with reading this content, please contact email@example.com
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
The Active Ingredients of Integral Stimulation Treatment: The Efficacy of Auditory, Visual, and Auditory-Visual Cues for Treatment of Childhood Apraxia of SpeechMaas, Edwin; Kohen, Francine; Caspari, Susan (Temple University. Libraries, 2020)The purpose of this study was to determine the relative efficacy of cueing modalities employed in Integral Stimulation (IS) treatment for childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). Previous literature has supported the use of IS for children with CAS, though there are no studies that evaluate the active ingredients of IS. This study aimed to examine the efficacy of single- and multi-modality cues in IS treatment. The experiment was administered as a single-case, alternating treatments design consisting of three conditions (auditory-only, visual-only, and simultaneous auditory and visual). Two participants with CAS received IS treatment in every condition during each session. Probes were administered prior to starting every other session (once per week), consisting of practiced and control targets that were balanced for complexity and functionality. Perceptual accuracy of productions was rated on a 3-point scale and standardized effect sizes were calculated for each condition. Each participant demonstrated different effects in regard to modality and treatment effects. The visual-only condition yielded the greatest effect for one participant, followed by the auditory-only cues. The other participant displayed no significant effects in any condition nor a treatment effect. The results of this study suggest that single-modality cues may be more beneficial for some children with CAS than the clinically used simultaneous auditory-visual multi-modality cue. The significant effect of the visual-only condition in one participant indicates that visual-only cues may bypass an impaired auditory feedback system and support speech motor learning, though more research is required.
Targeting Parental Accommodation in the Treatment of Youth with Anxiety: A Comparison of Two Cognitive Behavioral TreatmentsKendall, Philip C.; Olino, Thomas; Heimberg, Richard G.; Gosch, Elizabeth A.; Giovannetti, Tania; McCloskey, Michael S. (Temple University. Libraries, 2019)Parental accommodation refers to the ways in which a parent modifies his/her behavior to avoid or reduce the distress their child experiences. Parental accommodation of youth anxiety is common, and reduction in accommodation is associated with reduced anxiety after treatment. The current study evaluated the efficacy of an adapted cognitive-behavioral therapy program (CBT) designed to address parental accommodation (Accommodation Reduction Intervention; ARI). Sixty children and adolescents (age 7-17) and their parents were evaluated for youth anxiety and parental accommodation before and after 16 weeks of treatment. Thirty youth received ARI and 30 received Coping Cat (CC). Both youth anxiety and parental accommodation were significantly reduced from pre to posttreatment in youth who received ARI as well as those who received CC. No significant difference was found between the two treatment conditions on any measure of anxiety or accommodation. Findings indicate that an adapted CBT that focuses on parent accommodation (ARI) produced favorable outcomes comparable to Coping Cat. Clinical implications and future directions are discussed.
Putting the Community back into Therapeutic Community: Examining the Role of the Treatment Group in Prison-Based Substance Abuse TreatmentWelsh, Wayne N., 1957-; Hiller, Matthew L.; Taylor, Ralph B. (Temple University. Libraries, 2012)This dissertation conceptualized and evaluated the moderating effect of the treatment group on treatment responsiveness and recidivism among a sample of drug-involved offenders who received in-prison substance abuse treatment. Few studies of drug treatment simultaneously consider individual level variables and the context of group treatment. Those that have typically operationalize the treatment context with organizational indicators such as attributes of the staff, staff perceptions of the program, therapeutic orientation, and program accreditation. In contrast, the current work operationalized context from the perspective of the participant using as indicators client-based measures of treatment progress and satisfaction. The study expands existing theoretical models and extends what is known about treatment effectiveness by considering how the social group - the collection of individuals that constitute the prison unit in which the inmates received their 12 months of substance abuse treatment - may or may not moderate the influence of psychosocial functioning and treatment process variables and later outcomes. Such moderating impacts have theoretical implications for understanding the connections between treatment context, individual differences, and outcomes. Moderating impacts also have implications for the ways practitioners monitor treatment group climate and processes, thereby potentially improving service delivery. Finally, the present study contributes to the treatment literature by examining group influences of treatment on measures of recidivism - reincarceration and rearrest - that are of particular interest to practitioners and policymakers. The research was guided by three central questions: 1) Do significant differences on recidivism exist between treatment groups? 2) Does the treatment group moderate the impacts of psychosocial and treatment process variables on recidivism? 3) Does treatment modality have an effect on recidivism? To examine these questions, data from an evaluation of the treatment programs at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) at Chester, PA, were used (Welsh, 2006). The sample consisted of 618 adult male offenders who were randomly assigned to either the therapeutic community (TC) or the less-intensive group counseling treatment modality, each of which was 12 months in duration. A multilevel framework was applied to the data, as the offenders (level-1) were nested within 12 treatment units (level-2) in a single prison. The level-2 grouping was the prison unit where the offenders were housed and where they participated in the 12 months of treatment, and these units can be considered self-contained treatment programs. The predictors of primary importance were treatment responsiveness measures that were collected in the last month of the treatment experience. These included second-order factor analysis scores of measures of depression, anxiety, hostility, therapeutic engagement, trust in the treatment group, and peer support among others. Each was theoretically and empirically related to group functioning and later outcomes. Controls for other factors related to reoffending included time at risk, prior substance abuse and criminal history, age and race/ethnicity of the offender. These variables were all entered at level-1. A single level-2 variable was entered to examine and control for the effect of the type of treatment received (TC or group counseling). The data were analyzed using hierarchical generalized linear modeling (HGLM). This was the appropriate method because the data were nested and the outcomes were the binary measures of reincarceration and rearrest. Notably, multilevel models revealed significant variation on the reincarceration outcome across treatment units (level-2), controlling for treatment modality. This supported the first hypothesis that treatment effects could be attributed to something other than individual level variables or type of treatment received. A similar significant finding across treatment units (level-2), however, was not detected for the rearrest variable. Further, this method allowed for the examination of treatment group impacts on the individual psychosocial functioning and treatment process measures controlling for the type of treatment received. The second hypothesis stated that the treatment group would differentially affect the impact of these variables on recidivism. To reduce the number of individual-level predictors, the various subscales were entered into a second order principal components factor analysis. Three factors emerged: negative affect, positive attitude, and treatment satisfaction. Controlling for the composition of the group, the negative affect factor had a significant, positive direct effect on reincarceration. When the slopes of the three factors were allowed to vary, the model with treatment satisfaction and positive attitude as random effects fit the model best, as the treatment group significantly affected the impact these variables had on reincarceration. With regard to the third research question, in no analyses conducted did the treatment modality have a significant effect on the outcome. The third hypothesis that stated TC participants would have lower rates of reincarceration and rearrest, therefore, was not supported. This was a surprising result, as TCs have been found to be effective at reducing recidivism in previous research. In none of the existing studies, however, did the comparison group receive professional treatment services as the group counseling participants at SCI-Chester received. Several findings have implications for treatment research and policy. First, reincarceration significantly varied across the treatment units, even when controlling for the treatment modality and time at risk in the community. Second, the analysis of level-2 group impacts on individual level variables and recidivism were new contributions to the research in this area. These findings have implications for both theory (macro-to-micro theoretical effects of substance abuse treatment) and treatment delivery to those in prison. This research supported the first and second hypotheses that the group-level dimensions of prison-based substance abuse treatment have not been adequately considered in prior studies. This study takes an important first step in the direction of a more complete view of treatment experiences and outcomes that considers individuals nested within treatment groups.