Group treatment is delivered in youth correctional facilities, yet groups may be iatrogenic. Few measures with demonstrated psychometric properties exist to track behaviors of individuals during groups. The authors assessed psychometrics for the Group Process—Individual Level measure (GP-IL) of group treatment.
Methods
N = 152 teens were randomized to 1 of 2 groups (10 sessions each). Adolescents, counselors, and observers rated teen behaviors at sessions 3 and 10. GP-IL assesses reinforcement for deviancy and positive behaviors, member rejection, and counselor connection and praise.
Results
Internal consistency and 1-month stability were demonstrated. Concurrent validity is supported by correlations with measures expected to be associated with group behavior (e.g., coping skills). Counselors and observers rated more deviancy during interactive skills-building groups versus didactic psychoeducational groups (P ≤ .005). Scales evidenced incremental validity.
Conclusions
GP-IL offers a sound method of tracking adolescent behaviors for professionals working with groups. Counselors ratings were most reliable and valid overall.
TeplinLA, AbramKM, McClellandGM, DulcanMK, MericleAA. Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Arch Gen Psychiatry.2002;59:1133–1143.
2.
MulveyEP, SchubertCA, ChassinL. Substance Use and Delinquent Behavior among Serious Adolescent Offenders. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. NCJ 232790, Washington, DC: US Department of Justice; 2010.
3.
The Correctional Association of New York. Treatment Behind Bars: Substance Abuse Treatment in New York Prisons. New York: The Correctional Association of New York; 2011.
4.
DishionTJ, McCordJ, PoulinF. When interventions harm: peer groups and problem behavior. Am Psychol.1999;54:755–764.
5.
DishionTJ, PoulinF, BurrastonB. Peer group dynamics associated with iatrogenic effects in group interventions with high-risk young adolescents. In: NagleDW, EndleyCA, eds. The Role of Friendship in Psychological Adjustment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2001:79–92.
6.
MagerW, MilichR, HarrisMJ, HowardA. Intervention groups for adolescents with conduct problems: is aggregation harmful or helpful?J Abnorm Child Psychol.2005;33:349–362.
7.
PoulinF, DishionTJ, BurrastonB. 3-Year iatrogenic effects associated with aggregating high-risk adolescents in cognitive-behavioral preventative interventions. Appl Dev Sci.2001;5:214–224.
8.
WaldronHB, KaminerY. On the learning curve: the emerging evidence supporting cognitive-behavioral therapies for adolescent substance abuse. Addiction.2004;99(Suppl 2):93–105.
9.
FrenchMT, ZavalaSK, McCollisterKE, WaldronHB, TurnerCW, OzechowskiTJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis of four interventions for adolescents with a substance use disorder. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2008;34:272–281.
10.
SamplS, KaddenR. Motivational Enhancement Therapy and CognitiveBehavioral Therapy for Adolescent Cannabis Users: 5 Sessions. Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) Series, Volumee 1. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2001. DHHS Publication No. (SMA)01–3486.
11.
WebbC, ScudderM, KaminerY, KaddenR. The Motivational Enhancement Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Supplement: 7 Sessions of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Adolescent Cannabis Users. Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) Series, Volume 2. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2002. DHHS Publication No. (SMA)02–3659.
12.
SteinLAR.Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Alcohol and Marijuana Use: A Manual for Treating Incarcerated Teens. Unpublished manual, Brown University, Providence, RI. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse/National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; 2005.
13.
RoseM, KleinJ, SteinLAR, Lebeau-CravenR, JustusA. Substance Education Treatment: A Manual for Treating Incarcerated Adolescents. Unpublished manual, Brown University, Providence, RI. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse/National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; 2005.
14.
KesslerR, AndrewsG, MroczekD, UstunB, WittchenH. The World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF). Int J Methods Psychiatr Res.1997;7:171–185.
15.
SlavetJ, SteinLAR, ColbyS, . The Marijuana Ladder: measuring motivation to change marijuana use in incarcerated adolescents. Drug Alcohol Depend.2006;83:42–48.
16.
ClairM, SteinLAR, MartinR, . Motivation to change alcohol use and treatment engagement in incarcerated youth. Addict Behav. 2011;36:674–680.
17.
BreslinFC, SobellLC, SobellMB, BuchanG. A comparison of a brief and long format for the Situational Confidence Questionnaire. Poster presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy; Miami Beach, FL; November1997.
18.
RadloffLS. The use of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale in adolescents and young adults. J Youth Adolesc.1991;20:149–166.
MyersM, BrownS. Coping responses and relapse among adolescent substance abusers. J Subst Abuse.1990;2:177–189.
21.
MyersMG, BrownSA, MottMA. Coping as a predictor of adolescent substance abuser treatment outcome. J Subst Abuse.1993;5:15–29.
22.
MyersMG, BrownSA, MottMA. Preadolescent conduct disorder behaviors predict relapse and progression of addiction for adolescent alcohol and drug abusers. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1995;19:1528–1536.
23.
ReavyR, SteinLAR, PaivaA, . Validation of the delinquent activities scale for incarcerated adolescents. Addict Behav.2012;37:875–879.
24.
ReavyR, SteinLAR, QuinaK, . Assessing conduct disorder: a new measurement approach. J Correct Health Care.2014;20:4–17. doi: 10.1177/1078345813505448.
25.
TabachnickB, FidellL. Using Multivariate Statistics. 3rd ed. New York: HarperCollins; 1996.
26.
CohenJ.Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
27.
BarnettJ.Effect Size and Measures of Association. Summer Evaluation Institute sponsored by The American Evaluation Association and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Birmingham: University of Alabama, Birmingham; 2006.
28.
BenjaminiY, HochbergY. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc.1995;57:289–300.
