Guest Editors’ Introduction

This issue of the JRCE is devoted to the EQUIPping Youth to Help One Another training program. The EQUIP program intends to teach individuals with antisocial behavior problems to think and act more responsibly and to help one another in thinking and acting more responsibly (Gibbs, Potter, & Goldstein, 1995). EQUIP combines cognitive behavior therapy with a peer group approach. The main goal of this issue is to contribute to answering the question whether EQUIP is an evidence-based program. To determine whether a program is evidence-based, the following criteria need to be defined and assessed: (1) the target group of the program; (2) the program goals; (3) the conceptual framework underlying the program; (4) the method; (5) the program effectiveness; and (6) the program integrity monitoring the quality of the treatment delivered (Weisz, Sandler, Durlak, & Anton, 2005).The five articles in this issue present extensive information on these criteria with a focus on effectiveness. Here we introduce these criteria in the context of the EQUIP program.Broadly speaking, two different versions of the EQUIP program are available: one for intervention to be used in different kinds of treatment settings for individuals with antisocial behavior problems (Gibbs et al., 1995; Potter, Gibbs, & Goldstein, 2001) and one for prevention to be used in (secondary) schools (DiBiase, Gibbs, Potter, & Spring, 2005). In this issue, four empirical contributions investigate the effectiveness of EQUIP in different settings, while one paper addresses theoretical and practical issues.Devlin and Gibbs investigate the effects of the intervention version of EQUIP in a community-based correctional facility. Their study is typical of a clinical or indicated intervention also known as tertiary prevention (Institute of Medicine, 1994). The contributions of DiBiase, Van der Meulen et al., and Van der Velden et al. concern the effects of the prevention version of the EQUIP program in secondary schools. These three studies were carried out in different countries (Canada, Spain, and the Netherlands, respectively), and show the variability in the implementation of the EQUIP program. They differ in target group, design of study and measurement instruments. DiBiase investigates the effectiveness of EQUIP in a selected group of students who are at risk for externalizing behavior problems. Her study of at risk subgroups is an example of secondary prevention. Van der Meulen et al. investigate the effects of implementing EQUIP in normal secondary schools to reduce bullying. Finally, Van der Velden et al. investigate the effects of EQUIP in normal secondary schools containing a high proportion of students who are at risk for antisocial behavior. The studies of Van der Meulen et al. and Van der Velden et al. address entire populations and are examples of primary prevention (Institute of Medicine, 1994). In sum, the current issue shows a diversity of target groups that participate in some version of the EQUIP program.EQUIP aims to reduce and prevent antisocial behavior by decreasing individuals’ self-serving cognitive distortions, improving their social skills, and stimulating their moral judgment development in the context of a positive peer culture. Research has shown that individuals with externalizing behavior problems, including delinquents, are characterized by a high prevalence of self-serving cognitive distortions (Barriga, Morrison, Liau, & Gibbs, 2001; Nas, Brugman, & Koops, 2008; Van der Velden, Brugman, Boom, & Koops, 2010), social skill deficiencies (Beauchamp & Anderson, 2010; Lösel & Beelmann, 2005) and a low level of moral judgment development (Gibbs, Basinger, Grime, & Snarey, 2007; Stams et al., 2006).According to social-cognitive theories, people act upon their interpretation of social events. Hence, antisocial behavior is based on deficiencies in interpreting these events, for example, cognitive distortions, or on age inappropriate interpretations characterizing developmental delay in moral judgment. Cognitive distortions stem from neutralization theory (Palmer, 2007). Delay in moral judgment development is based on Gibbs’ (2010) sociomoral developmental theory, in which development takes place in two levels (immature and mature), each consisting of two stages. Delinquents function predominantly at the immature level of moral judgment, and nondelinquents at the mature level.In addition, social-cognitive theories propose that antisocial youth lack the behavioral repertoire to solve constructively difficult interpersonal situations. They do not know what specific steps are involved in constructive problem-solving and lack perspective-taking skills (Carducci, 1980). Social skills are crucial for adequate interpersonal behavior and are defined as “balanced and constructive behavior in difficult interpersonal situations” (Gibbs et al., 1995, p. 165). Skills training is needed to displace out-of-control destructive responses with incompatible constructive ones (Gibbs et al., 1995).Besides individual-based social and sociomoral cognitive theory, the EQUIP program makes use of an environmental oriented theory on peer group culture. The application of social-cognitive and sociomoral skills reinforces and needs to be reinforced by a positive peer culture in which individuals care for each other and help one another. Research has repeatedly found that, particularly for adolescents, behavior is more strongly influenced by the socio-moral culture in which individuals participate than by their individual socio-moral cognitions (Brugman, 2010).Both versions of the EQUIP program contain 10 lessons for each of the 3 components or helping skills: anger management and self-serving cognitive distortions, social skills, and social decision making (i.e., moral education). The contents of exercises in which these helping skills are stimulated and the didactics to be used may depend on the version, the setting and the participants. For example, the contents of the examples of aggressive behavior are milder in the prevention version than in the intervention version. While in the intervention version physical reactive aggression is addressed in the example of Joey having an argument with his girl friend and stabbing a knife into her belly, in the prevention version the same type of aggression is addressed by Joey having an argument with his sister and throwing a book at her. In the prevention version exercises are introduced for small groups of three individuals in a classroom context, while the intervention version uses a constant group format of six to nine individuals.The EQUIP participants learn a common language for recognizing and analyzing externalizing behavior problems and helping to prevent situations in which these problems arise. For example, in the case of Joey they learn to interpret the situation that Joey is easily angered and is assuming the worst. Subsequently they learn more appropriate (nonaggressive) interpretations of the situation and the skills to solve the problem in a constructive, balanced way.In addition to the helping skills lessons, the EQUIP intervention version contains mutual help meetings, in which the EQUIP participants practice the skills learned at the EQUIP meetings by helping one of the participants to solve his or her problems. During the mutual help meetings participants practice the skills by helping a peer deal with his or her real-life problems. These mutual help meetings are crucial in the intervention version, but are not included in the prevention version. The positive peer culture stimulates in particular high quality mutual help meetings and is a major source for transferring the application of the helping skills to situations outside the context of the EQUIP lessons. The program can be completed in three months, with three helping skills lessons in two meetings and in the intervention version additionally three mutual help meetings each week.The helping skills part of the EQUIP program is based on Aggression Replacement Training (ART; Goldstein & Glick, 2001), while the peer group intervention part is based on the Positive Peer Culture (PPC) model (Vorrath & Brendtro, 1985). ART and EQUIP share the same three components. In EQUIP as well as in ART each helping skill is addressed in ten lessons. However, some differences between the programs should be noted. First, ART does not include mutual help meetings as does the intervention version of EQUIP. This difference suggests that EQUIP might be more useful for incarcerated offenders, who need intensive programs to achieve cognitive restructuring (cf. Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005). Second, ART and EQUIP differ in the specific social skills they address. ART contains exercises for 50 different social skills, from simple to complex, while EQUIP focuses on 10 more complex social skills (like e.g., making excuses).Meta-analyses have shown cognitive-behavioral programs to be the most effective in reducing recidivism in adolescent and adult offenders (Pearson, Lipton, Cleland, & Yee, 2002). A meta-analysis conducted by Wilson, Bouffard and MacKenzie (2005) reported that group-oriented cognitive behavioral programs for offenders were effective in reducing their criminal behavior. Reductions of 20 to 30% in recidivism were reported as compared to control groups. For example, Barnoski (2004) reports a positive outcome for ART in reduction of recidivism after 18 months of 24%. Wilson, Bouffard, and MacKenzie (2005) found no differences in mean effect sizes between the programs reviewed. Effects of cognitive behavioral programs in nondelinquent youth generally are less strong than in delinquents, probably because there is less room for improvement. Limbos et al. (2007) argue in their review that higher effectiveness of prevention programs focusing on youth violence were reported as the level of intervention increased from universal to indicated. On the other hand, Wilson and Lipsey (2007) reported in their meta-analysis that the most common and effective approaches are universal interventions delivered to all the students in a classroom or school, and targeted interventions for selected students who participate in programs outside their classroom.Cognitive-behavioral programs share cognitive restructuring as their main goal (Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005). Being a cognitive behavioral program, one expects EQUIP to be relatively successful in realizing cognitive restructuring, developing social skills, and reducing recidivism. However, while ART is included in meta-analyses, EQUIP is not. Until now only a few research studies have been carried out investigating the effectiveness of EQUIP (Brugman & Bink, 2010; Leeman, Gibbs, & Fuller, 1993; Liau et al., 2004; Nas, Brugman, & Koops, 2005) and these studies were all carried out with incarcerated offenders. This issue contains the first effectiveness studies on the school-based prevention version of the EQUIP program.Quality control focuses on general and program-specific factors affecting outcomes (Van Yperen, van der Steege, Addink, & Boendermaker, 2010). These factors include participants’ motivation to change, quality of the relation between participant and trainer/coach, structure of the treatment, program integrity, professional education of trainer/coach, and after care. There is much discussion and disagreement about the operationalisation of these factors and the extent in which these factors influence outcomes. The importance of these characteristics is demonstrated in a study by Barnoski (2004), who reports a reduction of recidivism of 24% in ART when the program was competently delivered, but an increase of recidivism of 7% in case the program was not well implemented (Barnoski, 2004).Program integrity addresses the question to what extent programs are implemented as originally intended (Caroll et al., 2007; Dane & Schneider, 1998; O’Donnell, 2008). Many research studies contain only minimum information about program implementation. Consequently, one does not know whether varying outcomes should be attributed to differences in program integrity or to any other factors affecting outcomes. Five indicators of program integrity can be applied to the EQUIP program (Helmond, Brugman, & Overbeek, 2010): (1) Exposure: number, duration and frequency of implemented meetings. (2) Adherence: the degree in which the program components (anger management and cognitive distortions; social skills; social decision making or moral reasoning; mutual help meetings) are executed as intended. (3) Quality of delivery: the degree in which the trainer/coach uses the techniques, processes or methods as prescribed. (4) Participant responsiveness: the degree in which participants participate and are committed to the program and connected activities. (5) Program differentiation: the identification of essential program characteristics that are needed for effectiveness. For EQUIP these characteristics include: sufficient intruding confrontations with one’s own problems; composition of a mixed peer group that includes positive role-models; necessary skills available to participate in the peer group.This issue starts with an inspiring contribution by Power, who speaks of “the miracle of a moral community” when confronted with the EQUIP program as part of the Responsible Adult Culture (RAC) developed by Potter at the Franklin County Community Based Correctional Facility. Power draws several parallels between his own work on developing a ‘Just Community’ in schools and RAC, but notes some differences as well because of the differences in goals between a secondary school and a correctional facility. The research reported by Devlin and Gibbs was carried out on this exemplary implementation of the EQUIP program at the same institution. Their study goes beyond the current knowledge on the effectiveness of the intervention version of EQUIP by investigating whether a decrease of self-serving cognitive distortions is one of the mechanisms to reduce recidivism. DiBiase introduces EQUIP for Educators (EfE), the prevention version of the EQUIP program. Her study is the first to investigate the effects of EfE in a specific group of at risk children. Van der Meulen et al. link EfE to the reduction and prevention of bullying in regular secondary schools. To reduce bullying requires a group oriented approach and EQUIP as a peer group program has the potential to affect the peer group interactions and stimulate a positive peer group culture. Finally, van der Velden et al. introduce EfE as part of the regular curriculum in secondary schools with a high percentage of at risk adolescents in the Netherlands. This is the first primary prevention study on the effects of EfE on students’ self-serving cognitive distortions, social skills and moral judgment.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.