This article was downloaded by: [Childrens Mercy Hospital]
On: 9 December 2009
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 907141663]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792303975
Pilot Evaluation of the “ACT Parents Raising Safe Kids” Violence
Prevention Program
Breanne Porter a; Tasha Howe b
a
Florida State University, b Humboldt State University,
To cite this Article Porter, Breanne and Howe, Tasha(2008) 'Pilot Evaluation of the “ACT Parents Raising Safe Kids”
Violence Prevention Program', Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 1: 3, 193 — 206
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/19361520802279158
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19361520802279158
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 1:193–206, 2008
Copyright © 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.
ISSN: 1936-1521 print / 1536-153X online
DOI: 10.1080/19361520802279158
Pilot Evaluation of the “ACT Parents Raising Safe
Kids” Violence Prevention Program
1536-153X
1936-1521
WCAT
Journal
of Child & Adolescent Trauma
Trauma, Vol. 1, No. 3, July 2008: pp. 1–29
BREANNE PORTER1 AND TASHA HOWE2
Evaluation
B.
Porter and
of T.
ACT
Howe
Violence Prevention Program
1
Florida State University
Humboldt State University
Downloaded By: [Childrens Mercy Hospital] At: 20:26 9 December 2009
2
The Adults and Children Together (ACT) “Parents Raising Safe Kids” Violence
Prevention Curriculum is designed to prevent young children from becoming victims
or future perpetrators of violence by helping parents understand the effects of violence
on children’s development and learn nonviolent parenting skills. This study examined
the effectiveness of ACT with parents through the first controlled evaluation of the
program. Results demonstrate improvements related to all four modules of the ACT
program: anger management, social problem solving, nonaggressive discipline, and
media violence literacy. All parents surveyed at follow-up reported complete cessation
of physical punishment. These, along with other promising results supporting ACT’s
effectiveness, should encourage others to use this easily implemented, low-cost
violence prevention program for parents.
Keywords child abuse, parenting, violence prevention, spanking
Pilot Evaluation of the “ACT Parents Raising Safe Kids” Violence
Prevention Program
Exposure to violence during childhood is a serious problem. Violence is a leading cause of
death for children in the United States, more prevalent than disease, cancer, or congenital
disorders (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2001). In 2004, there were 872,000 known
victims of child abuse or neglect in the United States; 1,490 of those children died as a
result. Seventy-nine percent of perpetrators are parents (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 2006). In their Adverse Child Experiences Study, Felitti and colleagues
(1998) found a relationship between child abuse and many of the leading causes of
death in adults (e.g., obesity, diabetes). In addition to being victims and witnesses of
violent crime, children and adolescents are also increasingly becoming perpetrators of violence. Being physically abused and being exposed to interadult weapons use doubles a
child’s chance of committing at least one serious violent act when either risk factor is
present. Risk increases another four times if both are present (Spaccarelli, Coatsworth, &
Bowden, 1995).
Even children who do not experience violence are often exposed to violence in the
media. By the end of elementary school, the average child in the United States will have
seen approximately 8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence on television
(Levin, 1998). Exposing children to aggressive models increases the probability that they
will exhibit aggressive behavior (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961). Exposure to media
Submitted August 29, 2007; revised November 4, 2007; accepted June 10, 2008.
Address correspondence to Breanne Porter, Florida State University, Department of Family &
Child Sciences, 225 Sandels Building, Tallahassee, FL 32306.
193
194
B. Porter and T. Howe
Downloaded By: [Childrens Mercy Hospital] At: 20:26 9 December 2009
violence such as violent video games is also related to a greater risk for aggressive
behavior and delinquency, though this is not conclusive (Anderson & Dill, 2000).
Although witnessing violence is related to a higher risk of aggression, this relationship is stronger for children who have experienced poor parenting (Mazefsky & Farrell,
2005). Positive parenting, characterized by better parental monitoring, a more emotionally
secure parent-child relationship, and a lack of parental endorsement of fighting can
prevent aggression and antisocial problems among children who are facing multiple risk
factors and are associated with less violence and less weapon carrying by adolescents
(Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Orpinas, Murray, & Kelder, 1999).
Parents in many areas of the United States need an affordable program that provides
information on ways to keep their children safe from involvement with violence. The
current study is a pilot evaluation of such a program, the Adults and Children Together
(ACT) “Parents Raising Safe Kids” program, which was implemented in a low-income
rural area of northern California.
ACT and Other Violence Prevention Programs
Children under 8 years of age have the highest rate of child abuse and neglect and the
highest rate of maltreatment-related fatalities (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2006). The ACT program is designed for the parents of very young children,
because they are especially vulnerable to abuse, neglect, and witnessing violence in
their communities and media. Early childhood is a critical period in life when children
learn basic interpersonal skills and self-control (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998).
The competence children will demonstrate later in life depends on the parenting practices to which they were exposed as well as their self-regulation skills and cognitive
functioning, which are at a crucial point of development in early childhood (Masten &
Coatsworth). Violence prevention through parent education should focus on parents of
this high-risk age group in order to protect young children from becoming victims or
perpetrators of violence.
“Parents Raising Safe Kids” is designed to prevent child abuse and other forms of
violence. While ACT is unique in some ways, including its easy implementation and focus
on media violence literacy, it shares many characteristics with other successful programs.
One of the most widely known programs focusing on the parents of young children
experiencing conduct problems is the Incredible Years Parent Training Program. Both
Incredible Years and the ACT program recognize that homework assignments and group
discussions play an important role in keeping parents interested and in helping them apply
what they have learned outside the classroom. Both programs focus on the parents of
young children in the hopes that, by bringing maladaptive parenting and conduct problems
to an end while children are young, future difficulties can be prevented. The Incredible
Years program has been associated with reductions in maladaptive parenting and conduct
problems (Reid, Webster-Stratton, & Baydar, 2004).
However, Incredible Years is much more expensive than the ACT program. The cost
of training and materials for Incredible Years is approximately $2,800 per attendee
(Incredible Years, n.d.). Training for ACT, on the other hand, requires no more than travel
costs to the American Psychological Association (APA) headquarters in Washington DC
or free/low cost trainings in the local area by someone previously trained in Washington
DC (Miguel & Howe, 2006). Materials are provided by the APA and the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) free of charge or for nominal
printing and shipping charges (Miguel & Howe, 2006).
Downloaded By: [Childrens Mercy Hospital] At: 20:26 9 December 2009
Evaluation of ACT Violence Prevention Program
195
Another limitation of Incredible Years is that it focuses exclusively on the parentchild relationship and does not educate parents about the impact of media violence.
Although developmental science is moving beyond examining only this dyad and into a
broader systemic understanding of influences on children’s development such as extended
family and media (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998), many early intervention programs
concentrate exclusively on the role of parents. Not only is ACT more affordable than other
violence prevention programs, but it also addresses a broader scope of influences in
children’s lives with one curriculum designed for parents and another designed for
teachers and frontline professionals working with children.
Another program, PeaceBuilders, attempts to prevent violence by involving teachers
and students (in addition to parents) in a school-wide effort. Although PeaceBuilders is
successful in addressing spheres of influence beyond the family, it requires the training
and cooperation of an entire school. The large-scale commitment required of this universal
approach makes it impractical for many communities. Teachers and parents need a
program that can be implemented on a more individualized scale. The ACT curriculum is
more flexible, allowing the program to be tailored to the needs of diverse communities
(Miguel & Howe, 2006).
The ACT program’s recognition of the wide-ranging influences in a child’s life gives
the program the potential to better protect children from exposure to violence, while the
program’s low cost and flexibility allow it to reach populations in poor and rural areas
where expensive training programs and school-wide interventions are impractical. The
ACT curriculum is based on research demonstrating that violence is learned and can be
prevented by educating parents about anger management, social problem solving, nonaggressive discipline, and media violence literacy. Although many programs concentrate on
only one of these aspects of violence prevention (the role of media violence literacy is
unique to ACT), the ACT curriculum integrates all of these features into a single
comprehensive parent education program designed to safeguard children from violence.
Although the ACT program was developed by the APA based on decades of research,
it has only recently been the subject of empirical evaluation. Evaluation plays an
important role in assisting program developers in improving the effectiveness of this new
research-based program. Miguel and Howe (2006) found that professionals who attended
a 2-day ACT Training Program Workshop showed increases in knowledge of child development and violence prevention from pre- to post-testing, and further increases at 3-month
follow-up. The Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation (2004) also
found that attending the ACT training improved trainees’ reported awareness of violence
in the media and confidence in their ability to create violence-free environments for
children.
Now that the professional training program has established effectiveness in
improving professionals’ (e.g., schoolteachers, social workers, child care providers;
Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation, 2004; Miguel & Howe, 2006)
knowledge and ability to apply this knowledge in diverse settings such as preschools and
nonprofit parenting centers across the United States, the APA has decided to take the
program directly to parents in communities where ACT-trained professionals reside. The
goal of the ACT parent education program is to show parents that the example they set for
young children, particularly in expressing anger and aggressive behavior, influences what
children will say and do in the future. This latest phase of the ACT program, “Parents
Raising Safe Kids,” specifically targets parents at risk of abusing their children (e.g., poor,
young, or single parents). By being positive role models and teaching young children
constructive ways to resolve conflicts and handle anger, parents may help safeguard
Downloaded By: [Childrens Mercy Hospital] At: 20:26 9 December 2009
196
B. Porter and T. Howe
children from involvement with violence (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Mazefsky &
Farrell, 2005; Orpinas et al., 1999).
The current study is a pilot examination of ACT with parents through the first controlled evaluation of the parenting curriculum using a pre-test, post-test, and 3-month
follow-up format. Several sites around the country are also currently pilot testing the
8-week parent education curriculum. However, this study is the only completed evaluation
and uniquely includes the 3-month follow-up assessment with parents.
We hypothesized that once parents had completed the 8-week training, they would
show an increase in knowledge of ACT messages (importance of teaching social skills,
awareness of media violence) and preference for nonviolent discipline. We also hypothesized that they would have a more positive perception of their children’s behavior. Based
on the research of Miguel and Howe (2006), who found increases in child development
knowledge at follow-up, we hypothesized that parents in the current study would show
further increases in knowledge of ACT messages and skills related to anger management,
positive parenting, and nonviolent discipline at follow-up.
Methods
Participants
This pilot evaluation included 18 parents recruited through Child Welfare Services and the
Exchange Club Parenting Center. Informed consent was obtained before pretesting. Eight
parents were mandated to attend the parenting classes by family court or child protective
services, but participation in the research study was voluntary and parents were told their
participation would not be tied to any pending social services or custody cases. All parents
were of low income and experiencing multiple stressors (e.g., homelessness). For
complete demographic frequencies, see Table 1.
Measures
HSU Parenting Survey. The Humboldt State University (HSU) Parenting Survey was designed
by the current researchers to measure discipline preferences and positive parenting. Instead
of using an existing measure, we developed a short survey in order to more directly assess
parents’ recent (2 weeks prior) reported behavior regarding specific areas targeted by the
ACT program: physical punishment, positive parenting, anger management, and misdirected frustration. Parents were asked how many times they had used physical punishment
in the past 2 weeks (“physical punishment” variable), and also answered 14 Likert items
that were analyzed using principle components factor analysis with varimax rotation. The
first factor (Positive Parenting) contained 6 items including “I have enforced family rules
consistently.” The second factor (Anger Management) contained 2 items including “I have
lost my temper when with my child.” The third factor (Misdirected Frustration) contained 2
items including “I have been angry at someone/something else and taken it out on my
child.” Each factor was then used as a separate variable in data analysis. Due to editorial
space limitations, details on data coding, reduction, analyses, and statistical findings for all
variables can be obtained by contacting the first author.
APA’s ACT Evaluation Survey. This survey examined changes in parents’ self-reported
internalization of ACT messages. Items related to children watching television were added
together to create a composite variable called “media literacy.” The remaining ACT
Evaluation of ACT Violence Prevention Program
197
Table 1
Parent Demographics
Downloaded By: [Childrens Mercy Hospital] At: 20:26 9 December 2009
Demographic Variables
Gender
Male
Female
Age group
20–29
30–39
40–49
50–59
Race/ethnicity
White/European American
Native American
Hispanic/Latino
Multiethnic
Education level
Less than a high school education
Graduated high school; no college
Attended/attending college; no degree
Graduated from college
Parent status
Parent living with child
Noncustodial parent
Cared for partner’s or sibling’schild on regular basis
n
%
7
11
38.8
61.2
9
6
2
1
50.0
33.3
11.1
5.6
13
1
2
2
72.0
5.8
11.1
11.1
7
7
2
2
38.9
38.9
11.1
11.1
14.0
2.0
2.0
78.0
11.1
11.1
Evaluation items were analyzed using principle components factor analysis with varimax
rotation. This yielded a 4-factor solution. The first factor (Hostile Attributions and Beliefs
About Spanking) contained 9 items including “The child is trying to manipulate the father
by embarrassing him” regarding a 2-year old boy in a grocery store, and “Spanking is a
normal part of parenting” regarding what is best for children. The second factor (Family
Communication and Affection) contained 7 items including “How important is it for
parents to express affection toward children?” The third factor (Teaching Social Skills)
contained 9 items including “How important is it for parents to teach children how to
compromise?” The fourth factor (Beliefs About a Crying/Screaming Child) contained 7
items, including “Parents will spoil their children by picking them up and comforting them
when they cry.” The “media literacy” composite variable and each of these four factors
were then used as separate variables in data analysis.
Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC-2). The BASC-2 Parent Rating scale
(PRS) was used to measure parents’ perceptions of children’s behavior problems
(Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004). The preschool version (PRS-P) was completed by parents
of children under age 6 (n = 10), and the child version (PRS-C) was completed by parents
of children age 6 and older (n = 4). The specific variables being examined were “anger
control” (including items such as “hits other children”), “bullying” (including items such
as “teases others”), “developmental social disorders,” which assesses social skills and
198
B. Porter and T. Howe
deficits (including items such as “acts strangely”), “emotional self-control” (including
items such as “is easily upset”), “executive functioning” (including items such as “is
easily distracted”), “negative emotionality” (including items such as “changes moods
quickly”), “resiliency” (including items such as “is easily annoyed by others”), and
“aggression” (including items such as “threatens to hurt others”).
Downloaded By: [Childrens Mercy Hospital] At: 20:26 9 December 2009
Procedure
The ACT “Parents Raising Safe Kids” program lasted 8 weeks, with one 2-hour session
each week. It was free to all parents. Families met at a local church where they were
provided with free dinner before class and free child care. Parents participated in hands-on
activities, video discussions, and constructive homework assignments, and they analyzed
children’s books. (For more information on the curriculum, please visit http://
www.actagainstviolence.org.) At the first session, parents completed the ACT Evaluation
Survey, to give a baseline score for how much they knew about the ACT curriculum topics
at Time 1. At the second session, they completed the BASC-2 and responded to the HSU
Parenting Survey. These measures comprise the pretests.
At the seventh session, they completed the ACT Evaluation Survey again, and at the
eighth session, they completed the BASC-2 and the HSU Parenting Survey again. These
measures comprise the posttests. There was also a 3-month follow-up, during which
parents completed all measures one last time. Fourteen of the original 18 parents (77%)
completed the program (1 of the 14 left some survey items blank). In addition to our
posttest assessments, we attempted to locate parents 3 months later to find out whether
they were implementing the skills learned. Unfortunately, due to lack of phone service,
mobility, and repeated scheduling conflicts, only 33% of the original sample was available
for the 3-month follow-up.
During the 8 weeks of the program, parents were educated about child development
and risk factors for violence. They were also taught about how children learn by observing
and imitating adults who can model skills that will help them deal with their social
relationships in a nonaggressive way. In sum, these lessons were taught within the context
of the ACT program’s four modules: anger management, social problem solving,
discipline, and media violence literacy. The anger management module involves
empathizing during disagreements and expressing anger in a nonaggressive manner. The
social problem solving module focuses on helping children generate nonviolent,
alternative solutions to conflicts. The discipline module involves using developmentally
appropriate discipline strategies and avoiding aggressive, retaliatory punishment. The
media violence literacy module focuses on reducing the impact of media violence on
young children. All modules are presented in a hands-on, discussion-based, fun format
that parents enjoy.
Results
Demographic variables (mandated vs. voluntary attendance, gender, parent age group,
race/ethnicity, education level, number of classes attended, and parent status) for those who
completed follow-up assessments (n = 6) were compared to those who did not (n = 12), and
no differences in demographics were found. Pretest scores on all dependent variables were
also compared for those who completed follow-up assessments versus those who did not
as well as for those who completed the program versus those who dropped out, and no
differences in pretest scores were found. No commonalities were found among the 12 who
Downloaded By: [Childrens Mercy Hospital] At: 20:26 9 December 2009
Evaluation of ACT Violence Prevention Program
199
completed the program (or among the 4 who did not) that would suggest any shared factors
leading to completion versus dropout. Demographic variables were also entered as independent variables with pretest scores as dependent variables, and differences were only found
on pretest scores between Parent Age for the Bullying, F(3, 13) = 39.38, p = .007, h2 = .96;
Emotional Self-control, F(2, 3) = 87.14, p = .002, h2 = .98; and Executive Functioning,
F(3, 10) = 24.01, p = .04, h2 = .96, variables from the BASC-2 child version. Therefore,
repeated measures ANCOVA was used to control for Parent Age for the Bullying,
Emotional Self-control, and Executive Functioning variables. Beyond the small number of
ANCOVAs performed for the above variables, all results will be reported for the whole
sample where possible. Moreover, it is fairly certain the follow-up parents are representative of all parents in the sample, as they did not differ from the rest of the sample on any
demographic or dependent variables at pretest.
Due to the small number of participants included in the follow-up data (n = 6),
repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare pre- to post-tests separately from comparing pretest to follow-up and posttest to follow-up. This allows for the inclusion of all
14 participants who completed posttest surveys. Including these participants provides a
more accurate representation of the changes from pre- to post-test. Since those participants
available for follow-up did not differ on any variables at pretest from other parents, follow-up results may suggest general trends for the entire group. For the entire set of analyses, the Bonferoni adjustment procedure was used to reduce Type I error rates for multiple
tests. Therefore, the p value was set at .02 for all analyses.
HSU Parenting Survey
Analysis of the HSU Parenting Survey revealed several improvements in regard to
parents’ reports of using physical punishment and managing their anger. From pre- to
post-test, the “reported use of physical punishment” was reduced and demonstrated a
moderate effect size, F(1, 12) = 14, p < .01, h2 = .53. At follow-up, none of the parents
reported having used physical punishment in the prior 2 weeks (see Table 2), while at
pretest 83% had used physical punishment in the prior 2 weeks. Because the scores of
the 6 parents included in follow-up data did not change for this variable from post to
Table 2
Reported Physical Punishment and other Parenting Behaviors
Pre-test
(n = 18)
Post-test
(n = 14)
M
M
In the past 2 weeks, how manytimes have
1.64a*
you spanked your child or used some
form of physical force as a punishment?
Positive Parenting
20.73a
Anger Management
6.80a
Misdirected Frustration
7.53a
SD
0.99
SD
1.14b* 0.36
Follow-up
(n = 6)
M
SD
1.00b* 0.00
2.71 20.62a 2.18 22.00a 1.90
0.86 6.92a b 0.86 7.00b 0.89
0.52 7.69a 0.48 7.67a 0.52
Note. Means in the same row that do not share the same subscripts (a or b) differ at p £ .10 in a
repeated measures ANOVA.
*p < .01.
Downloaded By: [Childrens Mercy Hospital] At: 20:26 9 December 2009
200
B. Porter and T. Howe
follow-up (they reported spanking at pretest but no spanking at either posttest or followup), ANOVA was not used to compare posttest to follow-up scores. The finding that parents did not fall back into old habits of physical punishment even after 3 months supports
the goals of the ACT program’s third module, nonaggressive discipline.
There were no changes in the first factor (Positive Parenting) derived from the
factor analysis of the Likert items on the HSU Parenting Survey from pre- to post-test,
F(1, 10) < .01, p = 1.0, h2 < .01, or posttest to follow-up, F(1, 4) = 2.97, p = .16, h2 = .43
(see Table 2). Likewise, the second factor (Anger Management) showed no changes
from pre to post, F(1, 10) = .31, p = .58., h2 = .03, or post to follow-up, F(1, 4) = 2.25,
p = .20, h2 = .36. However, there was a trend toward improvement from pretest to
follow-up, F(1, 5) = 4.0, p = .10, h2 = .44 (see Table 2), showing a moderate effect size,
which may suggest that the development of anger management skills in the context of
parenting takes longer than 8 weeks to produce a noticeable difference. This finding
may provide preliminary support for the goals of the ACT program’s first module, anger
management. Finally, there were no changes in the third factor (Misdirected Frustration)
from pre- to post-test, F(1, 10) = .18, p = .67., h2 = .02, or posttest to follow-up, F(1, 4) = 2.66,
p = .17, h2 = .40 (see Table 2).
ACT Evaluation Survey
The “media literacy” composite variable showed no changes from pre- to post-test,
F(1, 12) = 1.11, p = .31, h2 = .09, or posttest to follow-up, F(1, 5) = 1.88, p = .22, h2 = .27.
However, there was a trend in the predicted direction from pretest to follow-up, F(1, 5) = 4.41,
p = .09, h2 = .46, demonstrating a moderate effect size for increased monitoring of
children’s television viewing and understanding of the potentially negative effects of
television on young children. This finding partially supports the goals of the ACT program’s fourth module, media violence literacy (see Table 3).
The first derived factor (Hostile Attributions and Beliefs About Spanking) showed
improvement from pre- to post-test, F(1, 12) = 6.69, p = .02, h2 = .36, with higher scores
demonstrating fewer hostile attributions of children’s behavior and less support for the use
Table 3
Internalization of ACT Messages
Pre-test
(n = 7)
Scales
Media literacy
Hostile attributions and beliefs
about spanking
Family communication and affection
Importance of teaching social skills
Beliefs about a crying/screaming
child
Post-test
(n = 4)
Follow-up
(n = 3)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
14.50a
34.05a*
3.31
1.00
14.8a b
37.15b*
2.4
4.46
17.00b
39.3a b
1.78
3.59
32.8a
38.80a*
27.5a
2.69
4.87
4.45
32.9a
41.61b*
26.69a
1.80
2.43
2.21
34.5a
40.8a b
28.25a
1.00
2.94
5.61
Note. Means in the same row that do not share the same subscripts (a or b) differ at p < .10 in a
repeated measures ANOVA.
*p £ .03.
Evaluation of ACT Violence Prevention Program
201
Downloaded By: [Childrens Mercy Hospital] At: 20:26 9 December 2009
of spanking. This finding supports the goals of the ACT program’s third module, nonaggressive discipline (see Table 3).There were no further changes at follow-up, F(1, 3) =1.0,
p = .39, h2 = .25.
The third factor (Teaching Social Skills) did show improvement from pre- to posttest, demonstrating an increased belief in the importance of teaching children how to use
their words and get along with others, F(1, 12) = 5.72, p = .03, h2 = .32. This finding supports the goals of the ACT program’s second module, social problem solving (see Table 3).
No further changes were found at follow-up, F(1, 4) = 3.36, p = .14, h2 = .46.
There were no changes in the second factor (Family Communication and Affection)
from either pre- to post-test, F(1, 12) < 1.0, p = 1.0, h2 < .001, or posttest to follow-up,
F(1, 3) = 4.20, p = .13, h2 = .58. Likewise, there were no changes in the fourth factor
(Beliefs About a Crying/Screaming Child) from pre- to post-test, F(1, 12) = .22, p = .64,
h2 = .02, or posttest to follow-up, F(1, 3) = .21, p = .67, h2 = .07.
BASC-2
Analysis of the child version (PRS-C) of the BASC-2 (for parents of children over age 5)
revealed no changes in reports of child aggression from pre- to post-test, F(1, 2) = 1.0, p = .42,
h2 = .33, but did reveal a trend in the predicted direction (lower scores represent less
aggression) from pretest to follow-up, F(1, 2) = 7.56, p = .11, h2 = .79, and showed
a further change from posttest to follow-up, demonstrating a large effect size, F(1, 2) =16,
p = .05, h2 = .89 (see Table 4). This finding demonstrates parents’ perceived decrease in
children’s aggression, the problem behavior of the greatest concern to ACT program
developers. No changes were found for any of the other BASC-2 variables.
Discussion
We hypothesized that once parents had completed the 8-week ACT training, they would
show an increase in knowledge of ACT messages and an increased preference for nonviolent
Table 4
Behavior Assessment System for Children
Pre-test
(n = 7)
Scales
Anger control
Bullying
Developmental social disorders
Emotional self-control
Executive functioning
Negative emotionality
Resiliency
Aggression
Post-test
(n = 4)
Follow-up
(n = 3)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
17.33a
20.17a
14.60a
15.83a
24.80a
12.00a
36.00a
19.33ab
20.23
30.37
8.76
26.33
27.05
10.49
32.99
23.95
12.00a
10.33a
14.00a
5.67a
12.67a
7.00a
22.67a
14.67a
7.00
6.81
8.72
6.66
6.35
4.36
10.12
10.26
9.75a
7.00a
13.75a
6.75a
13.75a
6.00a
23.25a
10.67b
2.06
2.71
6.45
4.11
3.95
4.24
9.74
9.07
Note. Higher scores represent more favorable behavior on all scales except Aggression, for which
lower scores represent more favorable behavior. For pre- to follow-up and post- to follow-up comparisons, n = 3. Means in the same row that do not share the same subscripts differ at p = .05 in a
repeated measures ANOVA.
Downloaded By: [Childrens Mercy Hospital] At: 20:26 9 December 2009
202
B. Porter and T. Howe
discipline. Results partially supported these hypotheses. In fact, improvements were found
in variables relating to all ACT modules. That parents’ reported improvement from pretest
to follow-up in anger management, as measured by the HSU Parenting Survey, is consistent with the goal of the ACT’s anger management module. It also lends support to the
findings of Fetsch, Schultz, and Wahler (1999), who found that parenting and anger management knowledge levels increased and attitudes and behaviors improved for parents
who used the RETHINK method that is also used in ACT. The fact that, in the current
study, little improvement was seen at posttest but significant changes were found at follow-up suggests anger management is a skill that may take several months to develop and
may suggest parents actively integrated skills learned after the program ended.
Parents’ increases from pre- to post-test in the belief in the importance of Teaching
Social Skills, as measured by the ACT Evaluation Survey, are consistent with the goal of
the second module of the ACT program, social problem solving. Whether children are
accepted or rejected by their peers in early childhood has a significant impact on their
likelihood of developing socially appropriate behaviors versus conduct problems
(Miller-Johnson, Coie, Maumary-Gremaud, & Bierman, 2002). If our findings regarding
parents’ beliefs about Teaching Social Skills can be replicated at other sites, this will
hopefully translate into more children learning better social skills and being more
accepted by their peers. Although such a conclusion cannot be drawn from the current
study, future research should investigate whether such changes in parents’ beliefs do in
fact translate into their children having better peer relationships.
Parents’ reported decreases from pre- to post-test in the use of physical punishment,
and there was maintenance of posttest improvements at follow-up, as measured by the
HSU Parenting Survey. This is consistent with the goal of the third module of the ACT
program, nonaggressive discipline. Since the ACT program is designed primarily to prevent child abuse, the finding that 46% of parents who completed the training reportedly
maintained their cessation of physical punishment 3 months after classes had ended is
arguably the most important finding of this study. Although this is a self-report item that
embodies all the caveats associated with such a measure, it is the most concrete measure
of parents’ discipline practices in this study because it asks them about their behavior
directly. The changes in their responses following the training demonstrate at least a
change in discipline norms as they perceive them. Parents were surprisingly honest about
their support of spanking in early classes when speaking in front of the class where their
comments were not confidential. It is encouraging to see their endorsed behaviors become
more positive. Decreased use of physical punishment is consistent with the research of
Knox (2008), who reported similar findings among 40 parents who attended the ACT
program in Ohio. This consistency across different regions and demographics lends support to ACT’s effectiveness in diverse settings. Future research should include observational data and child behavioral assessment to assess ACT’s effect on actual behavior.
Improvements from pre- to post-test in the ACT evaluation variable, Hostile Attributions and Beliefs About Spanking, are also consistent with the goals of the nonaggressive
discipline module. Pinderhughes, Dodge, Bates, Pettit, and Zelli (2000) found that parents
who attribute more hostile intent to their children are more likely to choose physical punishment and more severe punishment to correct their children. In our study, the aggregation of the ACT evaluation items concerning hostile attributions of children’s intentions
and items concerning the support of spanking is consistent with research showing these
two concepts to be highly correlated.
Parents’ reported increase from pretest to follow-up in media literacy is consistent
with the goals of the ACT program’s third module, media violence literacy. Their
Downloaded By: [Childrens Mercy Hospital] At: 20:26 9 December 2009
Evaluation of ACT Violence Prevention Program
203
increased monitoring of children’s television viewing and understanding of the potentially
negative effects of television on young children is important in preventing their children’s
exposure to violent media. The media violence literacy module is unique to the ACT
program, and it is encouraging to see a relationship between such training and parents’
behaviors and beliefs about television watching. The fact that improvements were not seen
at posttest but were at follow-up suggests changing one’s television viewing habits is a
gradual process of integration.
It was also hypothesized that parents would have a more positive perception of their
children’s behavior following the training. This was partially supported by the finding that
parents of children over age 5 reported decreased child aggression on the BASC-2 from
posttest to follow-up. This finding is important because it speaks to the ACT program’s
objective of preventing the intergenerational transmission of aggressive behavior.
Since the primary goal of this program is prevention, not treatment, longitudinal
studies examining whether the behavior of children whose parents have attended the ACT
training worsens or improves compared to children of parents in a control or comparison
group are necessary to fully evaluate the ACT program’s preventative potential. The lack
of improvements from pre- to post-test may indicate there is a delay between improvements in parenting knowledge and related improvements in children’s behavior. The fact
that aggression was the only variable to show noteworthy improvements may be due to the
ACT program’s primary focus on reducing aggressive behavior specifically. Future
researchers might consider using a more sensitive measure than the BASC-2 to detect
changes in child behavior.
Based on Miguel and Howe (2006), it was hypothesized that parents would show
further increase in knowledge and skills at follow-up. This hypothesis was supported in
regard to the “reported use of physical punishment,” the “anger management,” the media
literacy, and the perceived child aggression variables. Although 3-month follow-up
included only 6 parents, these parents represent 46% of those who completed every survey
item at the end of training. This means nearly half of parents who completed the training
and their posttest measures were reportedly controlling their anger, monitoring violent
media, and not using physical punishment 3 months after the training had ended. If other
evaluations of the ACT parenting curriculum currently being conducted around the
country find similar results, this could imply ACT has the potential to prevent physical
punishment in at least 40% to 50% of families reached by the program. This is exciting
news for helping professionals looking for inexpensive, effective, easy-to-implement
programs to use with the families under their care.
The Hostile Attributions and Beliefs About Spanking variable showed further
improvements at follow-up and, while not statistically significant, still demonstrates that
progress was maintained 3 months after the training had ended. Since only 6 parents
attended the follow-up, all follow-up results should be seen as tentative and requiring
replication. Nevertheless, it is important to note no demographic or pretest data differed
for those attending follow-up or not, which suggests these results may have been similar
for the entire sample.
Although there were no changes in scores for the majority of the scales on the BASC-2,
average pretest scores for all the BASC-2 variables fell within one standard deviation of
the national average, demonstrating that in general, parents reported their children’s
behavior at pretest to be within the range of normal behavior for other children their age.
The fact that these children’s behavior scores were stable during the 5 months of the families’ contact with the ACT program is encouraging. There may have been no improvement
during this time, but there was also no decline in behavioral adjustment scores despite the
204
B. Porter and T. Howe
fact that many of the families experienced multiple stressors during the 5 months, including court hearings, homelessness, and custody battles. Future research should include a
control group, as Knox (2008) did, in order to examine whether being in the ACT program
helped keep children’s behavior stable or whether this would occur on its own without
intervention.
Overall, the results of this evaluation provide support for the ACT program effectively meeting its goals, which are to educate parents and provide them with concrete
skills regarding anger management, social problem-solving, non-aggressive discipline,
and media violence literacy. Further research will need to move beyond self-reports and
focus on actual changes in parental and child behavior.
Downloaded By: [Childrens Mercy Hospital] At: 20:26 9 December 2009
Limitations and Future Directions
One strength of this sample is it included both parents/caregivers who were mandated to
attend by family court or child protective services as well as those who attended voluntarily.
The sample also included both biological parents and step-parents as well as nearly equal
proportions of female (n = 7) and male caregivers (n = 6) at posttest. Ages of children
ranged from 8 months to 17 years (with all measures drawing particular attention to the
parents’ children under the age of 12), demonstrating a wide range of child-rearing experience. The most obvious limitation of this sample is its small size. The lack of statistically
significant differences for several of our variables that nevertheless showed moderate
effect sizes suggests the need for larger samples.
Another limitation is that the sample was 72% European American/White. While representative of the region in which the study was conducted, future research should include
a larger, more diverse sample. In this regard, Knox (2008) is currently evaluating the ACT
program in Ohio with a more ethnically diverse sample and found similar results.
Given the challenging life circumstances that led many of these parents to attend the
class, they were difficult to contact after the class had ended, and thus, only 6 completed
the follow-up assessments despite concentrated efforts and incentives. Nevertheless, a
strength of the program that speaks to its appeal to parents is evident in our low attrition
rate. Fourteen of the original 18 parents (77%) remained at the end of the 8-week program,
with parents attending an average of seven sessions, or 87.5% of the eight weekly
sessions. The reasons for leaving given by the 4 parents who did drop out of the ACT
program were not reportedly due to program content or social service intervention. Of
these 4 parents, 1 dropped out due to a conflict with a church employee, 1 was a domestic
partner who broke up with the primary caregiver before the program ended, and 2 were
college-educated parents who left saying they already knew everything being taught.
Since the goal of the program is to increase parents’ endorsement and integration of ACT
principles, parents who are already well-functioning and knowledgeable about positive
parenting can be referred to other parenting resources in the community if need be.
The ACT program’s high attendance rate is impressive given that some research has
shown 40% of parents enrolled in the widely implemented Incredible Years Parent
Training Program dropping out after one or two sessions (Reid et al., 2004). Similarly,
parents enrolled in the Chicago Parent Program, a program designed specifically for lowincome parents of 2- to 4-year-old children, attended an average of only 39% of the 2-hour
training sessions (Garvey, Julion, Fogg, Kratovil, & Gross, 2006). The high attendance in
the current study can be attributed to several factors that future ACT implementers should
include: multiagency collaboration (university, nonprofit social service agencies, and the
faith community), community involvement (incentives donated by local businesses),
Downloaded By: [Childrens Mercy Hospital] At: 20:26 9 December 2009
Evaluation of ACT Violence Prevention Program
205
weekly reminders with phone calls and question-answering, and a warm, supportive, fun
environment. Free dinner and child care were also provided to all families, and the venue
was conveniently located near a bus route. It is suggested that professionals obtain small
grant funds and donations of incentives in order to retain families over the 8 weeks.
All participants were of low income, and some were homeless or did not own
vehicles. Without the free child care in particular, many of the parents would not have
been able to attend. There were also weekly drawings for gift certificates donated by local
businesses in the hopes of encouraging attendance. All 6 parents at follow-up said they
would like to attend the ACT parenting class again. In unsolicited thank-you cards
received from all 14 parents at the final session, parents wrote comments such as “Thank
you for everything. Great class! Can I do it again?? Learned a lot” and “You did a good
job. It was always nice to talk to you on the phone.”
Future research should include direct observation in addition to self-report measures
to achieve a more objective evaluation of parent-child interactions. Future research should
also include a control or comparison group. While pretest scores serve as baselines,
changes observed could be due to other variables than just the ACT program (such as
receiving subsidized housing). Future research should include longitudinal studies with
randomly assigned groups to better report on the program’s efficacy regarding the prevention of children’s conduct problems later in life. If future research uses the BASC-2,
administering the teacher-report version and the self-report version for children who were
old enough, in addition to the parent-report, would be optimal in order to extract a more
systemic analysis of the children’s behavior.
Another limitation of this study is related to the ACT Evaluation Survey for which
APA has not developed methods for scoring or analysis. The current study’s factor
analysis gives program developers an indication of key underlying constructs measured by
this tool. However, program users should note that the wording of some of the questions
was too advanced for a sample that included participants who did not graduate high
school, and some of the questions were too ambiguous. APA has already revised much of
the ACT curriculum with these issues in mind.
In sum, this pilot evaluation is the first step toward ensuring that ACT becomes an
evidence-based practice, and it will hopefully encourage others to implement the program,
which was developed on firm, empirical ground. Knowing that the ACT program has
improved the perceptions and self-reported behaviors of stressed parents at risk for
abusing their children has the potential to make a socially significant impact in the lives of
local families who can benefit from this parenting curriculum. It is hoped that this research
will encourage other communities and agencies with limited budgets and diverse populations to implement and evaluate this violence prevention curriculum.
References
American Academy of Pediatrics. (1998). Guidance for effective discipline. Pediatrics, 101,
723–728.
Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior
in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772–790.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of
aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575–582.
Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation. (2004). Evaluation of the ACT Against
Violence Training Program: Report. (Available from Battelle Centers for Public Health
Research and Evaluation, 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 800, Arlington, VA 22201).
Downloaded By: [Childrens Mercy Hospital] At: 20:26 9 December 2009
206
B. Porter and T. Howe
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon
& R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human
development (5th ed., pp. 993–1028). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., et al.
(1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading
causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, 14, 245–258.
Fetsch, R. J., Schultz, C. J., & Wahler, J. J. (1999). A preliminary evaluation of the Colorado
RETHINK parenting and anger management program. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 353–360.
Garvey, C., Julion, W., Fogg, L., Kratovil, A., & Gross, D. (2006). Measuring participation in a
prevention trial with parent of young children. Research in Nursing & Health, 29, 212–222.
Incredible Years. (n.d.). Price sheet and order form. Retrieved October 4, 2006, from http://
www.incredibleyears.com
Knox, M. (2008). ACT against violence: Parents raising safe kids. Manuscript in preparation.
Levin, D. E. (1998). Remote control childhood. Washington DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and
unfavorable environments. American Psychologist, 53, 205–220.
Mazefsky, M. S., & Farrell, A. D. (2005). The role of witnessing violence, peer provocation, family
support, and parenting practices in the aggressive behavior of rural adolescents. Journal of Child
and Family Studies, 14, 71–85.
Miguel, J. J., & Howe, T. R. (2006). Implementing and evaluating a national early violence
prevention program at the local level: Lessons from ACT (Adults and Children Together)
Against Violence. Journal of Early Childhood and Infant Psychology, 2, 17–37.
Miller-Johnson, S., Coie, J. D., Maumary-Gremaud, A., & Bierman, K. (2002). Peer rejection and
aggression and early starter models of conduct disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
30, 217–230.
Orpinas, P., Murray, N., & Kelder, S. (1999). Parental influences on students’ aggressive behaviors
and weapon carrying. Health Education and Behavior, 26, 774–787.
Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & Zelli, A. (2000). Discipline
responses: Influences of parents’ socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and beliefs about parenting,
stress, and cognitive-emotional processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 380–400.
Reid, M. J., Webster-Stratton, C., & Baydar, N. (2004). Halting the development of conduct
problems in Head Start children: The effects of parent training. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 2, 279–291.
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). Behavior assessment system for children manual
(2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.
Spaccarelli, S., Coatsworth, J. D., & Bowden, B. S. (1995). Exposure to serious family violence
among incarcerated boys: Its association with violent offending and potential mediating
variables. Violence and Victims, 10, 163–178.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families.
(2006). Child maltreatment 2004. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.