An amenability to treatment model stipulates that interventions may be differentially effective for subgroups of individuals with similar characteristics. Using such a model, the present study tests the impact of two social-cognitive interventions implemented in the sixth (Intervention I) and eighth/ninth (Intervention II) grades on students' skill acquisition and on their ninth and tenth grade substance use. A randomized factorial design was used to examine main and interaction effects within the context of student family household status and gender. Positive program effects were found for Intervention II on skill acquisition and overall drug involvement. Interaction effects of Intervention II x Family Household Status provided support for the amenability to treatment model, but no support for the model was observed based on student gender. Possible explanations for the study findings are presented and future research directions are proposed to address why differences emerge in amenability to intervention and why such differences occur for specific subgroups.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KazdinA. E., Child Psychotherapy: Developing and Identifying Effective Treatments, Pergamon Press, New York, 1988.
2.
CookT. D.CampbellD. T., Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings, Rand McNally, Chicago, 1979.
3.
HawkinsJ. D.CatalanoR. F.MillerJ. Y., Risk and Protective Factors for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Adolescence and Early Adulthood: Implications for Substance Abuse Prevention, Psychological Bulletin, 112:1, pp. 64–105, 1992.
4.
BiglanA.SeversonH.AryD.FallerC.GallisonC.ThompsonR.GlasgowR.LichtensteinE., Do Smoking Prevention Programs Really Work? Attrition and the Internal and External Validity of an Evaluation of a Refusal Skills Training Program, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10, pp. 159–171, 1987.
5.
EllicksonP. L.BellR. M., Drug Prevention in Junior High School: A Multi-Site Longitudinal Test, Science, 247, pp. 1299–1305, 1990.
6.
BruvoldW. H., A Meta-Analysis of Adolescent Smoking Prevention Programs, American Journal of Public Health, 83, pp. 872–880, 1993.
7.
NewcombM. D.BentlerP. M., Consequences of Adolescent Drug Use: Impact on the Lives of Young Adults, Sage, Newbury Park, California, 1988.
8.
BotvinG. J.BakerE.DusenburyL.TortuS.BotvinE., Preventing Adolescent Drug Abuse through a Multimodal Cognitive-Behavior Approach: Results of a Three-Year Study, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, pp. 437–446, 1990.
9.
ConnellD. B.TurnerR. R.MasonE. F., Summary of Findings of the School Health Education Evaluation: Health Promotion Effectiveness, Implementation, and Costs, Journal of School Health, 55, pp. 316–321, 1985.
10.
GrahamJ. W.JohnsonC. A.HansenW. B.FlayB. R.GeeM., Drug Use Prevention Programs, Gender, and Ethnicity: Evaluation of Three, Seventh-Grade Project SMART Cohorts, Preventive Medicine, 19, pp. 305–313, 1990.
11.
PentzM. A.DwyerJ. H.MacKinnonD. P.FlayB. R.HansenW. B.WangE. Y. I.JohnsonC. A., A Multicommunity Trial for Primary Prevention of Adolescent Drug Abuse, Journal of the American Medical Association, 261, pp. 3259–3266, 1989.
12.
GradyK.GersickK. E.SnowD. L.KessenM., The Emergence of Adolescents Substance Use, Journal of Drug Education, 16, pp. 203–220, 1986.
13.
KalterN., Children of Divorce in an Outpatient Psychiatric Population, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 47, pp. 40–51, 1977.
14.
SaucierJ. F.LambertA. M., Parental Marital Status and Adolescents' Health-Risk Behavior, Adolescence, 70, pp. 403–411, 1983.
15.
SelnowG. W., Parent-Child Relationships and Single and Two Parent Families: Implications for Substance Usage, Journal of Drug Education, 17, pp. 315–326, 1987.
16.
SnowD. L.TebesJ. K.AyersT. S., The Relationship between Family Household Status and Substance Use in Adolescence, unpublished manuscript, Yale University, The Consultation Center, New Haven, Connecticut, 1994.
17.
SnowD. L.TebesJ. K.ArthurM. W.TapasakR. C., Two-Year Follow-Up of a Social-Cognitive Intervention to Prevent Substance Use, Journal of Drug Education, 22, pp. 101–114, 1992.
18.
SnowD. L.GradyK.TebesJ. K., Adolescent Decision-Making Program: Report of a Longitudinal School-Based Preventive Intervention, The Community Psychologist, 20, pp. 13–14, 1987.
19.
GersickK. E.GradyK.SnowD. L., Social-Cognitive Skill Development with Sixth Graders and Its Initial Impact on Substance Use, Journal of Drug Education, 18, pp. 55–70, 1988.
20.
ToblerN. S., Meta-Analysis of 143 Adolescent Drug Prevention Programs: Quantitative Outcome Results of Program Participants Compared to a Control or Comparison Group, Journal of Drug Issues, 16, pp. 537–567, 1986.
21.
ToblerN. S., Drug Prevention Programs Can Work: Research Findings, Journal of Addictive Diseases, 11, pp. 1–28, 1992.
22.
KandelD. B.LoganJ. A., Periods of Risk for Initiation, Stabilization, and Decline in Drug Use from Adolescence to Early Adulthood, American Journal of Public Health, 74, pp. 660–666, 1984.
23.
NewcombM. D.BentlerP. M., Substance Use and Ethnicity: Differential Impact of Peer and Adult Models, Journal of Psychology, 120, pp. 83–95, 1986.
24.
BlackfordL., Summary Report Surveys of Student Drug Use, unpublished manuscript, San Mateo Department of Public Health and Welfare, San Mateo County, California, 1977.
25.
BerberianR. M.ThompsonW. D.KaslS. V.GouldL. C.KleberH. D., The Relationship between Drug Education Programs in the Greater New Haven Schools and Changes in Drug Use and Drug-Related Beliefs and Perceptions, Health Education Monographs, 2, pp. 327–376, 1976.
26.
TebesJ. K.SnowD. L.ArthurM. W., Panel Attrition and External Validity in the Short-Term Follow-Up Study of Adolescent Substance Use, Evaluation Review, 16, pp. 151–170, 1992.
27.
CohenJ., Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1988.
28.
MurrayD. M.HannanP. J., Planning for the Appropriate Analysis in School-Based Drug-Use Prevention Studies, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, pp. 1–11, 1990.
29.
AkersR. L.MasseyJ.ClarkeW.LauerR. N., Are Self-Reports of Adolescent Deviance Valid? Biochemical Measures, Randomized Response, and the Bogus Pipeline in Smoking Behavior, Social Forces, 62, pp. 234–251, 1983.
30.
JohnsonL. D.O'MalleyP. M.BachmanJ. G., Drugs and American High School Students 1975–1983, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, Maryland, 1984.
31.
NewcombM.BentlerP., Substance Use and Abuse among Children and Teenagers, American Psychologist, 44, pp. 242–248, 1989.
32.
FrostA. K.PakizB., The Effects of Marital Disruption on Adolescents: Time as a Dynamic, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60, pp. 544–555, 1990.
33.
LongfellowC., Divorce in Context: Its Impact on Children, in Divorce and Separation: Context, Causes, and Consequences, LevingerG.MolesO. (eds.), Basic Books, New York, pp. 287–306, 1979.
34.
WertliebD.WeigelC.FeldsteinM., Stress, Social Support, and Behavior Symptoms in Middle School, Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 16, pp. 204–211, 1987.
35.
WillsT. A., Stress and Coping in Early Adolescence: Relationships to Substance Use in Urban School Samples, Health Psychology, 5, pp. 503–529, 1986.
36.
WillsT. A.VaughanR., Social Support and Substance Use in Early Adolescence, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12, pp. 321–339, 1989.
37.
JohnsonC. A.PentzM. A.WeberM. D.DwyerJ. W.BaerN.MacKinnonD. P.HansenW. B.FlayB. R., Relative Effectiveness of Comprehensive Community Programming for Drug Abuse Prevention with High-Risk and Low-Risk Adolescents, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, pp. 447–456, 1990.
