Evaluation of a Targeted Cognitive-Behavioral Program for Children with Conduct Problems — The SNAP® Under 12 Outreach Project: Service Intensity, Age and Gender Effects on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested the effectiveness of a multifaceted, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) program for antisocial children--the SNAP Under 12 Outreach Project (ORP)--in relation to age, sex and indices of treatment intensity. Study participants were 80 clinic-referred children (59 boys and 21 girls) aged 6-11 years assigned to one of the following groups: control (CG; n = 14) who did not receive the ORP, matched (MG; n = 50) who received the ORP, and experimental (EG; n = 16) who received an enhanced version of the ORP. Results indicated significant pre-post changes for the EG and MG for Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)-measured delinquency and aggression, but no improvement for the CG. Positive relationships between the number of individual ORP components (e.g. number of children's CBT sessions) received and CBCL change scores were also found. Statistical associations tended to be larger for girls and older children (i.e. 10-11 years old) who may have been more cognitively advanced. Also, the number of children's CBT sessions predicted later convictions, even after controlling for prior CBCL delinquency scores. Findings from this study support the effectiveness of the ORP, but also highlight the need to take into account client characteristics when offering clinical treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".