Bounce Back
Bounce Back, an adaptation of Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS) for younger children, is a school-based intervention designed to help children in grades K–5 who have experienced stressful and traumatic life events. Bounce Back uses cognitive-behavioral techniques to reduce symptoms related to trauma exposure, build skills for handling stress and anxiety, and build peer and caregiver support.
Bounce Back consists of group, individual, and caregiver education sessions. Students take part in ten group sessions where they participate in interactive discussions, games, and exercises and review activities completed in preparation for the session. Session 1 introduces participants to Bounce Back. Session 2 focuses on education about reactions to trauma. Sessions 3–6 focus on relaxation training, using helpful thoughts, and activities to process stress and coping skills. Sessions 7 and 8 focus on problem-solving. Session 9 addresses how to prevent relapses in trauma symptoms. Session 10 includes a graduation ceremony and celebration where the child is joined by a parent or trusted adult.
During individual sessions, the clinician helps each child process the traumatic event. Near the end of the program, the clinician meets with the parent and child to share the child's story. Students participate in two to three individual sessions.
Caregiver education sessions discuss how children react to stress, the goals and principles of the program, and how caregivers can help their children relax and feel less afraid or nervous. Caregivers participate in one to three sessions.
Bounce Back is rated as a promising practice because at least one study achieved a rating of moderate or high on study design and execution and demonstrated a favorable effect on a target outcome.
Date Last Reviewed (Handbook Version 1.0): Sep 2022
Sources
The program or service description, target population, and program or service delivery and implementation information were informed by the following sources: the program or service manual, the program or service developer’s website, the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare, and the studies reviewed.
This information does not necessarily represent the views of the program or service developers. For more information on how this program or service was reviewed, download the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0
Target Population
Bounce Back is used with students from kindergarten through 5th grade who have witnessed or experienced traumatic life events and are experiencing traumatic stress symptoms.
Dosage
Bounce Back is a 10-week program with 1-hour group sessions held once per week. Groups include four to seven students. In addition to the ten group sessions, the program includes two to three individual student sessions and one to three parent education sessions.
Location/Delivery Setting
Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings
Bounce Back is designed to be implemented in school settings.
Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research
- School
Education, Certifications and Training
Bounce Back is intended to be implemented by mental health professionals with specialized training in cognitive behavioral therapy and working with trauma survivors. Training delivered by certified CBITS trainers is recommended. Live training options include a 1-day training, or a 1.5-day training based on the experience level of the participant. The 1-day training takes place over 6 hours and is intended for mental health professionals who have been trained in CBITS and are familiar with child trauma, group therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy. The 1.5-day training takes place over 9 hours and is intended for mental health professionals who have not been trained in CBITS. Both live training options can be delivered in-person or virtually, and virtual trainings can be delivered over several days in shorter modules if needed. A self-led online training is also available.
Program or Service Documentation
Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review
Langley, A. K., & Jaycox, L. H. (2015). Bounce Back: Adaptation of Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools for K-5 elementary school students. The Regents of the University of California.
Available languages
Bounce Back materials are available in English and Spanish.
Other supporting materials
For More Information
Website: https://traumaawareschools.org/index.php/learn-more-bounce-back/
Email: info@traumaawareschools.org
Note: The details on Dosage; Location; Education, Certifications, and Training; Other Supporting Materials; and For More Information sections above are provided to website users for informational purposes only. This information is not exhaustive and may be subject to change.
| Results of Search and Review | Number of Studies Identified and Reviewed for Bounce Back |
|---|---|
| Identified in Search | 4 |
| Eligible for Review | 3 |
| Rated High | 1 |
| Rated Moderate | 1 |
| Rated Low | 1 |
| Reviewed Only for Risk of Harm | 0 |
| Outcome | Effect Size
 and Implied Percentile Effect
|
N of Studies (Findings) | N of Participants | Summary of Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning |
0.24
9 |
2 (14) | 397 |
Favorable:
9 No Effect: 5 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Child well-being: Social functioning |
0.87
30 |
1 (1) | 71 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 0 Unfavorable: 0 |
Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group.
| Outcome | Effect Size
and Implied Percentile Effect
|
N of Studies (Findings) | N of Participants | Summary of Findings |
Months after treatment when outcome measured
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning |
0.24
9 |
2 (14) | 397 |
Favorable:
9 No Effect: 5 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 13156 - Bounce Back vs. Practice as Usual (Humphrey, 2020) | |||||
| Me and My Feelings: Emotional Difficulties |
0.19
7 |
- | 326 | - | 0 |
| Me and My Feelings: Behavioural Difficulties |
0.14
5 |
- | 326 | - | 0 |
| Student Resilience Survey: Self-Esteem |
0.17
6 |
- | 326 | - | 0 |
| Student Resilience Survey: Problem Solving |
0.17
6 |
- | 326 | - | 0 |
| Study 13159 - Bounce Back vs. Delayed Waitlist Control (Langley, 2015) | |||||
| Children's Depression Inventory (Child Report) |
0.48
*
18 |
- | 71 | - | 0 |
| Children's Depression Inventory (Parent Report) |
0.59
*
22 |
- | 71 | - | 0 |
| UCLA Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Reaction Index (Child Report) |
1.01
*
34 |
- | 71 | - | 0 |
| UCLA Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Reaction Index (Parent Report) |
0.91
*
31 |
- | 71 | - | 0 |
| Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders |
0.60
*
22 |
- | 71 | - | 0 |
| Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Parent Report) |
0.57
*
21 |
- | 71 | - | 0 |
| Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Teacher Report) |
0.13
5 |
- | 71 | - | 0 |
| Emotion Regulation Checklist: Lability/Negativity |
0.60
*
22 |
- | 71 | - | 0 |
| Emotion Regulation Checklist: Emotion Regulation |
0.64
*
23 |
- | 71 | - | 0 |
| Coping Efficacy |
0.49
*
18 |
- | 71 | - | 0 |
| Child well-being: Social functioning |
0.87
30 |
1 (1) | 71 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 0 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 13159 - Bounce Back vs. Delayed Waitlist Control (Langley, 2015) | |||||
| Social Adjustment Scale – Self-Report: Total Score |
0.87
*
30 |
- | 71 | - | 0 |
*p <.05
Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group. Effect sizes and implied percentile effects were calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse as described in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0, Section 5.10.4 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications. The Prevention Services Clearinghouse uses information reported in study documents and, when necessary, information provided by authors in response to author queries to assign study ratings and calculate effect sizes and statistical significance (see Section 7.3.2 in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0). As a result, the effect sizes and statistical significance reported in the table may not align with the estimates as they are reported in study documents.
Only publications with eligible contrasts that met design and execution standards are included in the individual study findings table.
Full citations for the studies shown in the table are available in the "Studies Reviewed" section.
The participant characteristics display is an initial version. We encourage those interested in providing feedback to send suggestions to preventionservices@abtglobal.com.
The table below displays locations, the year, and participant demographics for studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Participant characteristics for studies with more than one intervention versus comparison group pair that received moderate or high ratings are shown separately in the table. Please note, the information presented here uses terminology directly from the study documents, when available. Studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution that did not include relevant participant demographic information would not be represented in this table.
For more information on how Clearinghouse reviewers record the information in the table, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
| Characteristics of the Participants in the Studies with Moderate or High Ratings | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Study Location
|
Study Year
|
Age or Grade-level
|
Race, Ethnicity, Nationality
|
Gender
|
Populations of Interest*
|
Household Socioeconomic Status
|
| Study 13156 - Bounce Back vs. Practice as Usual | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Newham, England | -- | 31% are in Year 6 (age 10-11); Age range: 9-11 years | 18% White or White-British |
49% Male 44% Female |
-- | -- |
| Study 13159 - Bounce Back vs. Delayed Waitlist Control | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Los Angeles County, CA, USA | 2011 | Mean age: 7.6 years |
49% Hispanic 27% Caucasian 18% African American 5% Biracial 1% Asian |
50% Male 50% Female |
-- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Los Angeles County, CA, USA | 2011 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
47% Household income of $40,000 or more 16% $25,000 - $39,999 11% $15,000 - $24,999 11% $5,000 - $14,199 7% Household income of $4,999 or less 8% Don't know |
“--” indicates information not reported in the study.
* The information about disabilities is based on initial coding. For more information on how the Clearinghouse recorded disability information for the initial release, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings. The Clearinghouse is currently seeking consultation from experts, including those with lived experience, and input from the public to enhance and improve the display.
Note: Citations for the documents associated with each 5-digit study number shown in the table can be found in the “Studies Reviewed” section below. Study settings and participant demographics are recorded for all studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Studies that did not report any information about setting or participant demographics are not displayed. For more information on how participant characteristics are recorded, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
Studies Rated High
Study 13156Humphrey, N., & Panayiotou, M. (2020). Bounce Back: Randomised trial of a brief, school-based group intervention for children with emergent mental health difficulties. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 205–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-020-01612-6
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)Studies Rated Moderate
Study 13159Langley, A. K., Gonzalez, A., Sugar, C. A., Solis, D., & Jaycox, L. (2015). Bounce Back: Effectiveness of an elementary school-based intervention for multicultural children exposed to traumatic events. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83(5), 853-865. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000051
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)Studies Rated Low
Study 13165Santiago, C. D., Raviv, T., Ros, A. M., Brewer, S. K., Distel, L. M. L., Torres, S. A., Fuller, A. K., Lewis, K. M., Coyne, C. A., Cicchetti, C., & Langley, A. K. (2018). Implementing the Bounce Back trauma intervention in urban elementary schools: A real-world replication trial. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000229
Ros, A. M., Brewer, S. K., Raviv, T., & Santiago, C. D. (2019). How do parent psychopathology and family income impact treatment gains in a school-based intervention for trauma? School Mental Health, 11(4), 777-789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-019-09324-2
This study received a low rating because it did not meet the statistical model standards.Studies Not Eligible for Review
Study 13149
Anthony, H., & McLean, L. A. (2015). Promoting mental health at school: Short-term effectiveness of a popular school-based resiliency programme. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 8(4), 199-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/1754730X.2015.1065188
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).