Guiding Good Choices®
Guiding Good Choices® (GGC), formerly known as Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY), aims to prevent teen substance use and risky behaviors by training parents to develop positive parenting and family management skills. GGC includes five sessions that cover (1) how to promote health and wellbeing during the teen years, (2) setting clear guidelines, (3) managing conflict, (4) helping children avoid trouble, and (5) strengthening family bonds. When delivered in a virtual setting, the program includes an additional introductory session focused on fostering community online. Between sessions, parents lead family meetings designed to promote bonding and to involve children in activities and discussions of important family issues. Parents receive a “family guide” to complete in preparation for each upcoming session. Family guides provide an overview of the content, links to key resources, and exercises to be discussed during the next session.
GGC is rated as a well-supported practice because at least two studies with non-overlapping samples carried out in usual care or practice settings achieved a rating of moderate or high on design and execution and demonstrated favorable effects in a target outcome domain. At least one of the studies demonstrated a sustained favorable effect of at least 12 months beyond the end of treatment on at least one target outcome.
Date Research Evidence Last Reviewed: 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, visit the download the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0
Target Population
GGC is designed to serve families with children ages 9–14.
Dosage
Workshop leaders deliver GGC over five weekly in-person or virtual group sessions with an additional introductory session delivered in the virtual format. Each session lasts 2–2.5 hours. Most sessions are for parents only, but Session 4 involves both children and parents.
Location/Delivery Setting
Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings
GGC can be delivered in-person or virtually in a group setting.
Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research
- School
Education, Certifications and Training
GGC workshops are designed to be led by two trained co-leaders. At least one co-leader should be a parent. To become a GGC workshop leader, individuals must complete in-person or virtual training. Training is typically 18–19 hours over 3–5 days. During the training, participants review the curriculum, practice leading sessions, and learn about the logistics for implementing the program.
Program or Service Documentation
Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review
Center for Communities That Care. (2020). Guiding Good Choices virtual workshop leader guide. University of Washington.
Available languages
GGC materials are available in English and Spanish.
Other supporting materials
Workshop Leader Training Schedule
Center for Communities that Care (2020). Guiding Good Choices: Family guide. University of Washington.
For More Information
Website: https://www.communitiesthatcare.net/programs/ggc/
Phone: (206) 685-7723
Contact form: https://www.communitiesthatcare.net/contact/
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 Guiding Good Choices® |
|---|---|
| Identified in Search | 4 |
| Eligible for Review | 2 |
| Rated High | 1 |
| Rated Moderate | 1 |
| Rated Low | 0 |
| 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: Substance use |
0.14
5 |
1 (4) | 251 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices |
Not Calculated
|
1 (14) | 174 |
Favorable:
7 No Effect: 7 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Family functioning |
Not Calculated
|
1 (15) | 174 |
Favorable:
3 No Effect: 12 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. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.
| 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: Substance use |
0.14
5 |
1 (4) | 251 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 14202 - PDFY (Guiding Good Choices) vs. Minimal-contact Control (Guyll, 2004) | |||||
| Alcohol Use Composite Index |
-0.10
-3 |
- | 251 | - | 3 |
| Alcohol Use Composite Index |
-0.12
-4 |
- | 251 | - | 15 |
| Alcohol Use Composite Index |
0.19
7 |
- | 251 | - | 27 |
| Alcohol Use Composite Index |
0.58
*
21 |
- | 251 | - | 45 |
| Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices |
Not Calculated
|
1 (14) | 174 |
Favorable:
7 No Effect: 7 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 14199 - PDFY (Guiding Good Choices) vs. Waitlist Control (Kosterman, 1997) | |||||
| Proactive Communication: Task 2—Problem-Solving (Observation of Mother) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 0 | - | 2 |
| Negative Interaction: Task 2—Problem-Solving (Observation of Mother) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 0 | - | 2 |
| Proactive Communication: Task 2—Problem-Solving (Observation of Father) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 0 | - | 2 |
| Negative Interaction: Task 2—Problem-Solving (Observation of Father) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 0 | - | 2 |
| Study 14199 - PDFY (Guiding Good Choices) vs. Waitlist Control (Kosterman, 2001) | |||||
| Monitoring and Reasoning (Mother Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 174 | - | 2 |
| Punishment Inclination (Mother Report) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 174 | - | 2 |
| Punishment Consistency (Mother Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 174 | - | 2 |
| Monitoring and Reasoning (Father Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 157 | - | 2 |
| Punishment Inclination (Father Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 157 | - | 2 |
| Punishment Consistency (Father Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 157 | - | 2 |
| Study 14199 - PDFY (Guiding Good Choices) vs. Waitlist Control (Spoth, 1995) | |||||
| Intervention-Specific Parenting Skills (Mother Report) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 159 | - | 2 |
| General Child Management Skills (Mother Report and Observation of Mother) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 159 | - | 2 |
| Intervention-Specific Parenting Skills (Father Report) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 142 | - | 2 |
| General Child Management Skills (Father Report and Observation of Father) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 142 | - | 2 |
| Adult well-being: Family functioning |
Not Calculated
|
1 (15) | 174 |
Favorable:
3 No Effect: 12 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 14199 - PDFY (Guiding Good Choices) vs. Waitlist Control (Kosterman, 1997) | |||||
| Relationship Quality: Task 2—Problem-Solving (Observation of Mother) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 0 | - | 2 |
| Relationship Quality: Task 2—Problem-Solving (Observation of Father) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 0 | - | 2 |
| Study 14199 - PDFY (Guiding Good Choices) vs. Waitlist Control (Kosterman, 2001) | |||||
| Rewards to Child (Mother Report) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 174 | - | 2 |
| Conflict From Child (Mother Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 174 | - | 2 |
| Involvement From Child (Mother Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 174 | - | 2 |
| Rewards From Child (Mother Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 174 | - | 2 |
| Conflict Toward Spouse (Father Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 157 | - | 2 |
| Conflict From Spouse (Father Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 157 | - | 2 |
| Conflict From Child (Father Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 157 | - | 2 |
| Involvement From Child (Father Report) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 157 | - | 2 |
| Rewards From Child (Father Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 157 | - | 2 |
| Rewards to Spouse (Father Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 157 | - | 2 |
| Rewards From Spouse (Father Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 157 | - | 2 |
| Relationship Satisfaction With Spouse (Father Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 157 | - | 2 |
| Involvement From Spouse (Father Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 157 | - | 2 |
*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, Section 5.10.4 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.
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 14202 - PDFY (Guiding Good Choices) vs. Minimal-contact Control | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Midwest, USA | 1993 | Average age: 11 years | -- | 51% Girls | -- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Midwest, USA | 1993 | Average age of mothers: 37 years; Average age of fathers: 40 years. | 99% Caucasian | -- | -- | $33,400 Median household income (circa 1993) |
| Study 14199 - PDFY (Guiding Good Choices) vs. Waitlist Control | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Central Midwest, USA | -- | Average age of mothers: 39 years; Average age of fathers: 41 years | 100% European-American | -- | -- | $34,998 Household income |
“--” 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 14199Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Haggerty, K., & Ward, T. (1995). A controlled parenting skills outcome study examining individual difference and attendance effects. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57(2), 449-464. https://doi.org/10.2307/353698
Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Spoth, R., Haggerty, K. P., & Zhu, K. (1997). Effects of a preventive parent-training intervention on observed family interactions: Proximal outcomes from Preparing for the Drug Free Years. Journal of Community Psychology, 25(4), 337-352. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199707)25:4%3C337::AID-JCOP3%3E3.0.CO;2-R
Rueter, M., A., Conger, R. D., Ramisetty-Mikler, S. (1999). Assessing the benefits of a parenting skills training program: A theoretical approach to predicting direct and moderating effects. Family Relations, 48, 67-77. https://doi.org/10.2307/585684
Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (2001). Preparing for the Drug Free Years: Session-specific effects of a universal parent-training intervention with rural families. Journal of Drug Education, 31(1), 47-68. https://doi.org/10.2190/3kp9-v42v-v38l-6g0y
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Studies Rated Moderate
Study 14202Spoth, R., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (1998). Direct and indirect latent-variable parenting outcomes of two universal family-focused preventive interventions: Extending a public health-oriented research base. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 385-399. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.385
Spoth, R., Reyes, M. L., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (1999). Assessing a public health approach to delay onset and progression of adolescent substance use: Latent transition and log-linear analyses of longitudinal family preventive intervention outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(5), 619-630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.67.5.619
Redmond, C., Spoth, R. L., Shin, C., and Lepper, H. S. (1999). Modeling long-term parent outcomes of two universal family-focused preventive interventions: One-year follow-up results. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(6), 975-84. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-006X.67.6.975
Spoth, R., Goldberg, C., & Redmond, C. (1999). Engaging families in longitudinal preventive intervention research: Discrete-time survival analysis of socioeconomic and social-emotional risk factors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(1), 157-163. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-006X.67.1.157
Park, J., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., & Spoth, R. (2000). Effects of the "Preparing for the Drug Free Years" curriculum on growth in alcohol use and risk for alcohol use in early adolescence. Prevention Science, 1(3), 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010021205638
Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2001). Randomized trial of brief family interventions for general populations: Adolescent substance use outcomes 4 years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(4), 627-642. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.69.4.627
Spoth, R. L., Guyll, M., Trudeau, L., & Goldberg-Lillehoj, C. J. (2002). Two studies of proximal outcomes and implementation quality of universal preventive interventions in a community-university collaboration context. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(5), 499-518. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.10021
Spoth, R. L., Guyll, M., & Day, S. X. (2002). Universal family-focused interventions in alcohol-use disorder prevention: Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of two interventions. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(2), 219-228. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2002.63.219
Mason, W. A., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., & Spoth, R. L. (2003). Reducing adolescents' growth in substance use and delinquency: Randomized trial effects of a parent-training prevention intervention. Prevention Science, 4(3), 203-212. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024653923780
Guyll, M., Spoth, R. L., Chao, W., Wickrama, K. A. S., & Russell, D. (2004). Family-focused preventive interventions: Evaluating parental risk moderation of substance use trajectories. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(2), 293-301. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.293
Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Shin, C., & Azevedo, K. (2004). Brief family intervention effects on adolescent substance initiation: School-level growth curve analyses 6 years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(3), 535-542. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.535
Spoth, R. L., Clair, S., Shin, C., & Redmond, C. (2006). Long-term effects of universal preventive interventions on methamphetamine use among adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160(9), 876-882. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.160.9.876
Spoth, R., Shin, C., Guyll, M., Redmond, C., & Azevedo, K. (2006). Universality of effects: An examination of the comparability of long-term family intervention effects on substance use across risk-related subgroups. Prevention Science, 7(2), 209-224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-006-0036-3
Mason, W. A., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., Spoth, R. L., & Redmond, C. (2007). Influence of a family-focused substance use preventative intervention on growth in adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(3), 541-564. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00534.x
Spoth, R., Trudeau, L., Shin, C., & Redmond, C. (2008). Long-term effects of universal preventive interventions on prescription drug misuse. Addiction, 103(7), 1160-1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02160.x
Spoth, R., Trudeau, L., Guyll, M., Shin, C., & Redmond, C. (2009). Universal intervention effects on substance use among young adults mediated by delayed adolescent substance initiation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(4), 620-632. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016029
Mason, W. A., Kosterman, R., Haggerty, K. P., Hawkins, J. D., Redmond, C., Spoth, R. L., & Shin, C. (2009). Gender moderation and social developmental mediation of the effect of a family-focused substance use preventative intervention on young adult alcohol abuse. Addictive Behaviors, 34, 599-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.03.032
Mason, W. A., & Spoth, R. L. (2012). Sequence of alcohol involvement from early onset to young adult alcohol abuse: Differential predictors and moderation by family-focused preventive intervention. Addiction, 107(12), 2137-2148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03987.x
Spoth, R., Clair, S., & Trudeau, L. (2014). Universal family-focused intervention with young adolescents: Effects on health-risking sexual behaviors and STDs among young adults. Prevention Science, 15(Suppl. 1), S47-S58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0321-2
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Studies Not Eligible for Review
Study 14200
Scheuer, H., Kuklinski, M. R., Sterling, S. A., Catalano, R. F., Beck, A., Braciszewski, J., Boggs, J., Hawkins, J. D., Loree, A. M., Weisner, C., Carey, S., Elsiss, F., Morse, E., Negusse, R., Jessen, A., Kline-Simon, A., Oesterle, S., Quesenberry, C., Sofrygin, O., & Yoon, T. (2021). Parent-focused prevention of adolescent health risk behavior: Study protocol for a multisite cluster-randomized trial implemented in pediatric primary care. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 112, Article 106621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2021.106621
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 14203
Wang-Schweig, M., Kviz, F. J., Altfeld, S. J., Miller, A. M., & Miller, B. A. (2014). Building a conceptual framework to culturally adapt health promotion and prevention programs at the deep structural level. Health Promotion Practice, 15(4), 575-584. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839913518176
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).