An evaluation of a short-term, cognitive-behavioural intervention for primary age
children with anger-related difficulties
Rachel Cole
Individual or group cognitive
behavioural therapy (CBT) has a
strong evidence base for targeting
anger and self-control issues in young
people
with
emotional
and
behavioural difficulties (Bennet &
Gibbons,
2000;
Sukhodolsky,
Kassinove & Gorman, 2004).
However, few empirical studies focus
on the effectiveness of cognitivebehavioural
interventions
for
adolescents and children with angerrelated difficulties separately –
despite the conclusions of some
meta-analyses that effect sizes vary
for the two populations (ibid ). Of the
empirical
studies
which
do
distinguish between child and
adolescent populations, there are far
fewer studies focusing exclusively on
children under the age of 12 with
anger-related difficulties than on
adolescents (Koegl, Farrington,
Augimeri & Day, 2008), leading
some to conclude that there is more
research needed in this area (Jouglin,
2006).
My research question
Can short-term, CBT-based anger
management
groups
produce
improvements
in
behaviour,
emotional literacy, anger and peer
acceptance, in primary-age children?
The Study
Results
Participants
70 children between the ages of 7 and 11, from 12 primary schools.
Design
• Utilised a quasi-experimental, mixed group design.
• Groups within schools were matched on participants’ pre-intervention conduct scores on a
teacher completed Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997), and then
randomly allocated to cohorts.
• Schools receiving the intervention in Phase 1 of the study were labelled Cohort IN (intervention,
no-intervention); Phase 2 schools were labelled Cohort NI (no intervention, intervention).
Intervention
Key Stage 2 Anger Management programme, ‘Learning How to Deal with Our Angry Feelings’, an
unpublished six-week, group work course for 7-11 year olds (Faupel, Herrick & Sharp, 1998).
Measures
(a)Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997).
(b)Emotional Literacy Student and Teacher checklists (Faupel, 2003).
(c)Anger Management Pre/Post Assessment tool (Southampton Psychology Service, 2003).
(d)Like To Play (LITOP) Questionnaire (the Social Inclusion Survey, Frederickson & Graham,
1999).
While both cohorts yielded statistically significant improvements in
their understanding of anger directly post-intervention, only the
second cohort (NI) made statistically significant improvements in
general behaviour and emotional literacy.
SDQ total scores according to time and cohort
18.00
Mean SDQ scores (total)
CBT-based
interventions
for
young people with anger-related
difficulties
Kent County Council / University College London
17.00
Cohort
16.00
_______ 15.00
14.00
NI
IN
13.00
12.00
1
2
3
time
Neither cohort made improvements in anger levels or peer
perception scores.
Discussion
• Cohort IN did not show statistically significant improvements on most measures directly post-intervention or at follow-up. Only the measure of participants’ understanding
of anger as an emotional state showed significant improvement directly post-intervention, an effect which was maintained at follow-up.
• Cohort NI showed both a statistical improvement in understanding of anger as an emotional state, and in measures of general behaviour and emotional literacy. This
suggests that while both cohorts recalled learned aspects of the intervention (calming down strategies and bodily responses to anger), the intervention only changed
participants’ and teachers’ perceptions of behaviour and emotional literacy for Cohort NI.
Several potential reasons might account for these unexpected findings. Two are considered particularly pertinent:
1.Differences in pro-social skills: While the cohorts were matched on most measures pre-intervention, there were statistical differences on prosocial scores on the SDQ, and
the peer acceptance scores on the SIS, in favour of Cohort NI. It is possible that this Cohort, with more social skills and greater peer acceptance, were more receptive to the
intervention - particularly given the socially oriented, group nature of the programme being evaluated.
2.Differences in school-level factors: In comparison to national averages, schools in Cohort NI have average results, and lower levels of social deprivation, whilst schools in
Cohort IN have below average results, high levels of children with statements and high levels of social deprivation. While the makeup of the individual children in the two
cohorts was similar, it is possible that clear systemic differences may have affected the efficacy of the intervention.