Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10-14

Target Population

SFP 10-14 is designed to serve families with youth ages 10–14.

Dosage

SFP 10-14 is delivered over 7 weekly multi-family group sessions of 7–10 families. A smaller group size is recommended for families with youth exhibiting problematic behavior. Each session lasts 2 hours. Group facilitators can offer four optional booster sessions 3–12 months after families have completed the 7-week program.

Location/Delivery Setting

Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings

SFP 10-14 can be delivered in a range of settings, including community-based agencies, community centers, and schools.

Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research

• School

Education, Certifications and Training

During each session, one group facilitator leads the parent group and two group facilitators lead the youth group. Education requirements are determined by the organization implementing SFP 10-14. It is recommended that group facilitators have group facilitation skills and experience working with youth, adults, and families.

Group facilitators must complete a 3-day training to become certified facilitators. The training covers program goals, session content, model implementation, and facilitation practice. Group facilitators must complete the training every three years to maintain their certification.

Certified group facilitators can gain additional certification as local agency trainers to deliver training to staff within their agency. To become a local agency trainer, group facilitators must meet a range of requirements, including experience implementing the entire program as both a parent and youth group facilitator, as well as participation in group coordination, planning, recruitment, research, and fidelity activities. Additional requirements include student teaching at a group facilitator training and 8 hours of mentorship and instruction from SFP 10-14 trainers.

Program or Service Documentation

Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review

Molgaard, V., Kumpfer, K., & Fleming, E. (2015). Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10-14 manual. University Extension, Iowa State University.

Available languages

The SFP 10-14 manual is available in English.

Other supporting materials

Fact Sheet

Curriculum Information

Training Information

Implementation Information

Resources

For More Information

Website: www.extension.iastate.edu/sfp10-14

Email: sfp1014@iastate.edu

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 Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10-14
Identified in Search	33
Eligible for Review	9
Rated High	2
Rated Moderate	1
Rated Low	6
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	Not Calculated	1 (6)	292	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 6 Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Substance use	0.28 11	2 (18)	543	Favorable: 2 No Effect: 16 Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices	0.15 5	1 (3)	140	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Family functioning	0.04 1	1 (9)	142	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 9 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: Behavioral and emotional functioning	Not Calculated	1 (6)	292	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 6 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 11342 - Strengthening Families Program 10-14 (SFP 10-14) vs. Minimal intervention control (Baldus, 2016)
Reynolds Adolescent Adjustment Screening	Null not calculated	-	292	-	0
Reynolds Adolescent Adjustment Screening	Null not calculated	-	292	-	1
Reynolds Adolescent Adjustment Screening	Null not calculated	-	292	-	13
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Total Difficulties Score	Null not calculated	-	292	-	0
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Total Difficulties Score	Null not calculated	-	292	-	1
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Total Difficulties Score	Null not calculated	-	292	-	13
Child well-being: Substance use	0.28 11	2 (18)	543	Favorable: 2 No Effect: 16 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 11342 - Strengthening Families Program 10-14 (SFP 10-14) vs. Minimal intervention control (Baldus, 2016)
Self-Reported Lifetime Tobacco Use	0.28 10	-	292	-	13
Self-Reported Lifetime Alcohol Use	0.12 4	-	292	-	13
Self-Reported Lifetime Cannabis Use	0.09 3	-	292	-	13
Past 30 Day Tobacco Use	0.03 1	-	292	-	0
Past 30 Day Tobacco Use	-0.05 -2	-	292	-	1
Past 30 Day Tobacco Use	0.20 7	-	292	-	13
Past 30 Day Alcohol Use	-0.22 -8	-	292	-	0
Past 30 Day Alcohol Use	-0.09 -3	-	292	-	1
Past 30 Day Alcohol Use	-0.04 -1	-	292	-	13
Past 30 Day Cannabis Use	-0.07 -2	-	292	-	0
Past 30 Day Cannabis Use	0.04 1	-	292	-	1
Past 30 Day Cannabis Use	0.18 7	-	292	-	13
Study 11364 - Iowa Strengthening Families (ISFP) vs. Minimal-Contact Control (Guyll, 2004 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting)
Alcohol Initiation Index	0.12 4	-	251	-	3
Alcohol Initiation Index	0.31 12	-	251	-	15
Alcohol Initiation Index	0.87 * 30	-	251	-	27
Tobacco Use Composite Index	0.09 3	-	251	-	3
Tobacco Use Composite Index	0.10 3	-	251	-	15
Tobacco Use Composite Index	0.51 * 19	-	251	-	27
Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices	0.15 5	1 (3)	140	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 11403 - SFP 10-14 vs. Minimal Contact Comparison Control (Riesch, 2012)
Family Supervision Scale (Youth Report)	-0.12 -4	-	119	-	1
Family Supervision Scale (Adult Report)	0.40 15	-	140	-	1
Family Supervision Scale (Adult Report)	0.16 6	-	124	-	6
Adult well-being: Family functioning	0.04 1	1 (9)	142	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 9 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 11403 - SFP 10-14 vs. Minimal Contact Comparison Control (Riesch, 2012)
Family Adaptation and Cohesion Evaluation Scale III: Cohesion (Youth Report)	0.30 11	-	137	-	1
Family Adaptation and Cohesion Evaluation Scale III: Cohesion (Adult Report)	-0.12 -4	-	141	-	1
Parent Adolescent Communication Inventory: Youth to Mother Communication	0.18 7	-	142	-	1
Parent Adolescent Communication Inventory: Youth to Father Communication	0.02 0	-	126	-	1
Parent Adolescent Communication Inventory: Mother to Youth Communication	-0.04 -1	-	125	-	1
Family Involvement Scale (Youth Report)	-0.27 -10	-	141	-	1
Family Involvement Scale (Youth Report)	-0.01 0	-	122	-	6
Family Involvement Scale (Adult Report)	0.19 7	-	140	-	1
Family Involvement Scale (Adult Report)	0.11 4	-	124	-	6

*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 11342 - Strengthening Families Program 10-14 (SFP 10-14) vs. Minimal intervention control
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Hamburg, Munich, Schwerin and Hanover, Germany	2010	Age range: 10-14 years; 4% 10 years, 16% 11 years, 50% 12 years, 27% 13 years, 4% 14 years	--	59% Male 41% Female	7% Problem behaviors above 85th percentile, assessed through self-report; 9% Problem behaviors above 93rd percentile assessed through parent-report	--
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Hamburg, Munich, Schwerin and Hanover, Germany	2010	--	--	94% Female 6% Male	--	--
Study 11364 - Iowa Strengthening Families (ISFP) vs. Minimal-Contact Control
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Iowa, USA	1993	Average age: 11 years; Age range: 10-13 years; 100% 6th graders	98% European-American ethnicity	52% Female 48% Male	--	--
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Iowa, USA	1993	Mother average age: 37 years; Father average age: 39 years	--	--	86% Dual parent household	$40,600 Mean household income $33,400 Median household income
Study 11403 - SFP 10-14 vs. Minimal Contact Comparison Control
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Madison, WI, USA; Indianapolis, IN, USA	2003	Average age: 11 years; Age range: 10-13 years	55% African American 37% Euro-American 2% Hispanic 1% Other 1% Asian 1% Alaska Native, Native American	51% Male 48% Female 1% Missing	--	--
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Madison, WI, USA; Indianapolis, IN, USA	2003	Average age: 39 years; Age range: 21-71 years	55% African American 38% Euro-American 3% Hispanic 2% Missing 1% Asian 1% Alaska Native, Native American	89% Female 11% Male	--	30% Income above $50,000 2% Income $45,001-50,000 2% Income $40,001-45,000 6% Income $35,001-40,000 8% Income $30,001-35,000 5% Income $25,001-30,000 9% Income $20,001-25,000 13% Income $15,001-20,000 10% Income $10,001-15,000 10% Income $5,001-10,000 48% Full-time employment 29% Not employed 21% Part-time employed

“--” 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.

Sometimes study results are reported in more than one document, or a single document reports results from multiple studies. Studies are identified below by their Prevention Services Clearinghouse study identification numbers. To receive a rating of supported or well-supported, the favorable evidence for a program or service must have been obtained from research conducted in a usual care or practice setting.

Studies Rated High

Study 11403

Riesch, S. K., Brown, R. L., Anderson, L. S., Wang, K., Canty-Mitchell, J., & Johnson, D. L. (2012). Strengthening Families Program (10-14): Effects on the family environment. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 34(3), 340-376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945911399108

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)
Study 11342

Stolle, M., Stappenbeck, J., Wendell, A., & Thomasius, R. (2011). Family-based prevention against substance abuse and behavioral problems: Culture-sensitive adaptation process for the modification of the US-American Strengthening Families Program 10-14 to German conditions. Journal of Public Health, 19(4), 389-395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-011-0405-7

Bröning, S., Sack, P.-M., Thomsen, M., Stolle, M., Wendell, A., Stappenbeck, J., & Thomasius, R. (2014). Implementing and evaluating the German adaptation of the "Strengthening Families Program 10 - 14"- A randomized-controlled multicentre study. BMC Public Health, 14, 83. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-83

Stappenbeck, J., Wendell, A., & Thomasius, R. (2015). Evaluation of the family-based Familien Staerken program for preventing substance abuse and behavior problems in youth. Gesundheitswesen, 77(Suppl. 1), S74-S75. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1333246

Bröning, S., Sack, P.-M., Thomsen, M., & Thomasius, R. (2016). Children with multiple risk factor exposition benefit from the German "Strengthening Families Program". Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 65(7), 550-566. https://doi.org/10.13109/prkk.2016.65.7.550

Baldus, C., Thomsen, M., Sack, P.-M., Broening, S., Arnaud, N., Daubmann, A., & Thomasius, R. (2016). Evaluation of a German version of the Strengthening Families Programme 10-14: A randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Public Health, 26(6), 953-959. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckw082

Bröning, S., Baldus, C., Thomsen, M., Sack, P.-M., Arnaud, N., & Thomasius, R. (2017). Children with elevated psychosocial risk load benefit most from a family-based preventive intervention: Exploratory differential analyses from the German 'Strengthening Families Program 10-14' adaptation trial. Prevention Science, 18(8), 932-942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0797-x

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)

Studies Rated Moderate

Study 11364

Spoth, 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., 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

Redmond, C., Spoth, R. L., Shin, C., & 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., 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

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., & Lepper, H. (1999). Alcohol initiation outcomes of universal family-focused preventive interventions: One- and two-year follow-ups of a controlled study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, (Suppl. 13), 103-111. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsas.1999.s13.103

Molgaard, V. K., Spoth, R. L., & Redmond, C. (2000). Competency training, the Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10-14. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/library/publications/competency-training-strengthening-families-program-parents-and-youth-10-14

Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2000). Reducing adolescents' aggressive and hostile behaviors: Randomized trial effects of a brief family intervention 4 years past baseline. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 154(12), 1248-1257. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.154.12.1248

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

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

Trudeau, L., Spoth, R., Randall, G. K., & Azevedo, K. (2007). Longitudinal effects of a universal family-focused intervention on growth patterns of adolescent internalizing symptoms and polysubstance use: Gender comparisons. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(6), 725-740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9179-1

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., Randall, G. K., & Shin, C. (2008). Increasing school success through partnership-based family competency training: Experimental study of long-term outcomes. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 70-89. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.70

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

Spoth, R., Guyll, M., & Shin, C. (2009). Universal intervention as a protective shield against exposure to substance use: Long-term outcomes and public health significance. American Journal of Public Health, 99(11), 2026-2033. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.133298

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. L., Trudeau, L. S., Guyll, M., & Shin, C. (2012). Benefits of universal intervention effects on a youth protective shield 10 years after baseline. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(4), 414-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.06.010

Trudeau, L., Spoth, R., Randall, G. K., Mason, W. A., & Shin, C. (2012). Internalizing symptoms: Effects of a preventive intervention on developmental pathways from early adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(6), 788-801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9735-6

Spoth, R., Trudeau, L., Shin, C., Ralston, E., Redmond, C., Greenberg, M., & Feinberg, M. (2013). Longitudinal effects of universal preventive intervention on prescription drug misuse: Three randomized controlled trials with late adolescents and young adults. American Journal of Public Health, 103(4), 665-672. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301209

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

Spoth, R., Trudeau, L., Shin, C., Randall, G. K., & Mason, W. A. (2019). Testing a model of universal prevention effects on adolescent relationships and marijuana use as pathways to young adult outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(3), 444-458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0946-y

This study was not conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)

Studies Rated Low

Study 11356

Coombes, L., Allen, D. M., & Foxcroft, D. (2012). An exploratory pilot study of the Strengthening Families Programme 10-14 (UK). Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy, 19(5), 387-396. https://doi.org/10.3109/09687637.2012.658889

This study received a low rating because none of the target outcomes met measurement standards.
Study 11360

Okulicz-Kozaryn, K., & Foxcroft, D. R. (2012). Effectiveness of the Strengthening Families Programme 10-14 in Poland for the prevention of alcohol and drug misuse: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 12, Article 319. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-319

Foxcroft, D. R., Callen, H., Davies, E. L., & Okulicz-Kozaryn, K. (2017). Effectiveness of the Strengthening Families Programme 10-14 in Poland: Cluster randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Public Health, 27(3), 494-500. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckw195

This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.
Study 11409

Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D. W., Hessling, R. M., Brown, P. A., and Murry, V. M. (2000). Direct and moderating effects of community context on the psychological well-being of African American women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 1088-1101. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.6.1088

Spoth, R., Guyll, M., Chao, W., & Molgaard, V. (2003). Exploratory study of a preventive intervention with general population African American families. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 23(4), 435-468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431603258348

This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.
Study 11407

Semeniuk, Y., Brown, R. L., Riesch, S. K., Zywicki, M., Hopper, J., & Henriques, J. B. (2010). The Strengthening Families Program 10-14: Influence on parent and youth problem-solving skill. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 17(5), 392-402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2009.01534.x

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.
Study 11354

Coatsworth, J. D., Duncan, L. G., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Gayles, J. G., Bamberger, K. T., Berrena, E., & Demi, M. A. (2015). Integrating mindfulness with parent training: Effects of the mindfulness-enhanced Strengthening Families Program. Developmental Psychology, 51(1), 26-35. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038212

Molloy Elreda, L., Coatsworth, J. D., Gest, S. D., Ram, N., & Bamberger, K. (2016). Understanding process in group-based intervention delivery: Social network analysis and intra-entity variability methods as windows into the 'black box'. Prevention Science, 17(8), 925-936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0699-3

Coatsworth, J. D., Hemady, K. T., & George, M. W. (2018). Predictors of group leaders' perceptions of parents' initial and dynamic engagement in a family preventive intervention. Prevention Science, 19(5), 609-619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0781-5

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.
Study 11353

Coatsworth, J. D., Duncan, L. G., Greenberg, M. T., & Nix, R. L. (2010). Changing parents' mindfulness, child management skills and relationship quality with their youth: Results from a randomized pilot intervention trial. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(2), 203-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-009-9304-8

Coatsworth, J. D., Duncan, L. G., Berrena, E., Bamberger, K. T., Loeschinger, D., Greenberg, M. T., & Nix, R. L. (2014). The mindfulness-enhanced Strengthening Families Program: Integrating brief mindfulness activities and parent training within an evidence-based prevention program. New Directions for Youth Development, (142), 45-58.

This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.

Studies Not Eligible for Review

Study 11333

Byrnes, H. F., Miller, B. A., Aalborg, A. E., Plasencia, A. V., & Keagy, C. D. (2010). Implementation fidelity in adolescent family-based prevention programs: Relationship to family engagement. Health Education Research, 25(4), 531-541. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyq006

Aalborg, A. E., Miller, B. A., Husson, G., Byrnes, H. F., Bauman, K. E., & Spoth, R. L. (2012). Implementation of adolescent family-based substance use prevention programs in health care settings: Comparisons across conditions and programs. Health Education Journal, 71(1), 53-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896910386209

Miller, B. A., Aalborg, A. E., Byrnes, H. F., Bauman, K., & Spoth, R. (2012). Parent and child characteristics related to chosen adolescent alcohol and drug prevention program. Health Education Research, 27(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyr109

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 11340

Arnaud, N., Baldus, C., Laurenz, L. J., Bröning, S., Brandt, M., Kunze, S., Austermann, M., Zimmermann, L., Daubmann, A., & Thomasius, R. (2020). Does a mindfulness-augmented version of the German Strengthening Families Program reduce substance use in adolescents? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 21(1), 114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4065-1

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 11343

Ballester, L., Sánchez-Prieto, L., Orte, C., & Vives, M. (2020). Preventing internalizing and externalizing symptoms in adolescents through a short prevention programme: An analysis of the effectiveness of the universal Strengthening Families Program 11-14. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 39(1), 119-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-020-00711-2

Sánchez‐Prieto, L., Orte, C., Ballester, L., & Amer, J. (2020). Can better parenting be achieved through short prevention programs? The challenge of universal prevention through Strengthening Families Program 11–14. Child & Family Social Work, 25(3), 515-525. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12717

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11352

Rulison, K. L., Feinberg, M., Gest, S. D., & Osgood, D. W. (2015). Diffusion of intervention effects: The impact of a family-based substance use prevention program on friends of participants. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57(4), 433-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.06.007

Crowley, D. M., Coffman, D. L., Feinberg, M. E., Greenberg, M. T., & Spoth, R. L. (2014). Evaluating the impact of implementation factors on family-based prevention programming: Methods for strengthening causal inference. Prevention Science, 15(2), 246-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0352-8

Rulison, K. L., Gest, S. D., & Osgood, D. W. (2015). Adolescent peer networks and the potential for the diffusion of intervention effects. Prevention Science, 16(1), 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0465-3

Schlomer, G. L., Cleveland, H. H., Vandenbergh, D. J., Feinberg, M. E., Neiderhiser, J. M., Greenberg, M. T., Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (2015). Developmental differences in early adolescent aggression: A gene × environment × intervention analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(3), 581-597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0198-4

Chilenski, S. M., Welsh, J. A., Perkins, D. F., Feinberg, M. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2016). Universal prevention exposure as a moderator of the community context: Findings from the PROSPER project. American Journal of Community Psychology, 57(1-2), 8-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12032

Schlomer, G. L., Cleveland, H. H., Feinberg, M. E., Wolf, P. S. A., Greenberg, M. T., Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., Tricou, E. P., & Vandenbergh, D. J. (2017). Extending previous cG×I findings on 5-HTTLPR's moderation of intervention effects on adolescent substance misuse initiation. Child Development, 88(6), 2001-2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12666

Cleveland, H. H., Griffin, A. M., Wolf, P. S. A., Wiebe, R. P., Schlomer, G. L., Feinberg, M. E., Greenberg, M. T., Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., & Vandenbergh, D. J. (2018). Transactions between substance use intervention, the oxytocin receptor (OXTR) gene, and peer substance use predicting youth alcohol use. Prevention Science, 19(1), 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0749-5

Schlomer, G. L., Cleveland, H. H., Deutsch, A. R., Vandenbergh, D. J., Feinberg, M. E., Greenberg, M. T., Spoth, R. L., & Redmond, C. (2019). Developmental change in adolescent delinquency: Modeling time-varying effects of a preventative intervention and GABRA2 halpotype linked to alcohol use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(1), 71-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0929-z

Spoth, R., Trudeau, L., Redmond, C., Shin, C., Feinberg, M. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2019). Brief report on PROSPER academic outcomes: Extended model of crossover effects on young adult college success. Child Development, 90(6), 1847-1855. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13321

Spoth, R., Greenberg, M., Bierman, K., & Redmond, C. (2004). Prosper community–university partnership model for public education systems: Capacity-building for evidence-based, competence-building prevention. Prevention Science, 5, 31–39. https://doi:10.1023/B:PREV.0000013979.52796.8b

Spoth, R., Guyll, M., Lillehoj, C. J., Redmond, C., & Greenberg, M. (2007). Prosper study of evidence-based intervention implementation quality by community-university partnerships. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(8), 981-999. https://doi:10.1002/jcop.20207

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Shin, C., Greenberg, M., Clair, S., & Feinberg, M. (2007). Substance-use outcomes at 18 months past baseline. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(5), 395–402. https://doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.01.014

Spoth, R., Guyll, M., Redmond, C., Greenberg, M., & Feinberg, M. (2011). Six-year sustainability of evidence-based intervention implementation quality by community-university partnerships: The PROSPER study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48(3-4), 412–425. https://doi:10.1007/s10464-011-9430-5

Spoth, R., & Greenberg, M. (2011). Impact challenges in community science-with-practice: Lessons from PROSPER on transformative practitioner-scientist partnerships and prevention infrastructure development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48(1-2), 106–119. https://doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9417-7

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11355

Coombes, L., Allen, D., Marsh, M., & Foxcroft, D. (2009). The Strengthening Families Programme (SFP) 10-14 and substance misuse in Barnsley: The perspectives of facilitators and families. Child Abuse Review, 18(1), 41-59. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.1055

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 11359

Fleming, C. B., Mason, W. A., Haggerty, K. P., Thompson, R. W., Fernandez, K., Casey-Goldstein, M., & Oats, R. G. (2015). Predictors of participation in parenting workshops for improving adolescent behavioral and mental health: Results from the common sense parenting trial. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 36(2), 105-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-015-0386-3

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11362

Gorman, D. M. (2015). Flexible data analysis and evaluations of the SFP 10-14. European Journal of Public Health, 25(5), 900-901. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv155

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 11365

Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., Trudeau, L., & Shin, C. (2002). Longitudinal substance initiation outcomes for a universal preventive intervention combining family and school programs. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16(2), 129-134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.16.2.129

Spoth, R. Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2000). Modeling factors influencing enrollment in family-focused preventive intervention research. Prevention Science, 1, 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026551229118

Lillehoj, C. J., Trudeau, L., Spoth, R., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (2004). Internalizing, social competence, and substance initiation: Influence of gender moderation and a preventive intervention. Substance Use & Misuse, 39(6), 963-991. https://doi.org/10.1081/ja-120030895

Spoth, R., Randall, G. K., Shin, C., & Redmond, C. (2005). Randomized study of combined universal family and school preventive interventions: Patterns of long-term effects on initiation, regular use, and weekly drunkenness. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19(4), 372 –381. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.19.4.372

Spoth, R. L., Randall, G. K., Trudeau, L., Shin, C., & Redmond, C. (2008). Substance use outcomes 5 1/2 years past baseline for partnership-based, family-school preventive interventions. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 96(1-2), 57-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.01.023

Guyll, M., Spoth, R., & Crowley, D. M. (2011). Economic analysis of methamphetamine prevention effects and employer costs. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72(4), 577-585. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2011.72.577

Spoth, R., Trudeau, L., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2014). Replication RCT of early universal prevention effects on young adult substance misuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(6), 949-963. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036840

Spoth, R., Trudeau, L., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2016). Replicating and extending a model of effects of universal preventive intervention during early adolescence on young adult substance misuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84(10), 913-921. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000131

Trudeau, L., Spoth, R., Mason, W. A., Randall, G. K., Redmond, C., & Schainker, L. (2016). Effects of adolescent universal substance misuse preventive interventions on young adult depression symptoms: Mediational modeling. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(2), 257-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-9995-9

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11366

Hallgren, M., & Andréasson, S. (2013). The Swedish six-community alcohol and drug prevention trial: Effects on youth drinking. Drug and Alcohol Review, 32(5), 504-511. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12057

Skärstrand, E., Larsson, J., & Andréasson, S. (2008). Cultural adaptation of the Strengthening Families Programme to a Swedish setting. Health Education, 108(4), 287-300. https://doi.org/10.1108/09654280810884179

Skärstrand, E., Bränström, R., Sundell, K., Källmén, H., & Andréassen, S. (2009). Parental participation and retention in an alcohol preventive family-focused programme. Health Education, 109(5), 384-395. https://doi.org/10.1108/09654280910984807

Skärstrand, E., Sundell, K., & Andréasson, S. (2014). Evaluation of a Swedish version of the Strengthening Families Programme. European Journal of Public Health, 24(4), 578-584. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckt146

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11371

Hill, L. G., & Betz, D. L. (2005). Revisiting the retrospective pretest. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(4), 501-517. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005281356

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 11372

Hill, L. G., Goates, S. G., & Rosenman, R. (2010). Detecting selection effects in community implementations of family-based substance abuse prevention programs. American Journal of Public Health, 100(4), 623-630. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.154112

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 11373

Hill, L. G., Rosenman, R., Tennekoon, V., & Mandal, B. (2013). Selection effects and prevention program outcomes. Prevention Science, 14(6), 557-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0342-x

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 11375

Jalling, C., Bodin, M., Romelsjö, A., Källmén, H., Durbeej, N., & Tengström, A. (2016). Parent programs for reducing adolescent’s antisocial behavior and substance use: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(3), 811-826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0263-y

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11376

Jason, L. A., Pokorny, S. B., Kohner, K., & Bennetto, L. (1994). An evaluation of the short-term impact of a media-based substance abuse prevention programme. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 4(1), 63-69. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2450040111

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11383

Kumpfer, K. L., Whiteside, H. O., Greene, J. A., & Allen, K. C. (2010). Effectiveness outcomes of four age versions of the Strengthening Families Program in statewide field sites. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14(3), 211-229. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020602

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 11386

Lindsay, G., & Strand, S. (2013). Evaluation of the national roll-out of parenting programmes across England: The parenting early intervention programme (PEIP). BMC Public Health, 13, Article 972. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-972

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 11387

LoBraico, E. J., Fosco, G. M., Crowley, D. M., Redmond, C., Spoth, R. L., & Feinberg, M. E. (2019). Examining intervention component dosage effects on substance use initiation in the Strengthening Families Program: For parents and youth ages 10-14. Prevention Science, 20, 852-862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-00994-7

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 11393

Coombes, L., Allen, D., & McCall, D. (2012). The Strengthening Families Programme 10-14 (UK): Engagement and academic success at school. Community Practitioner, 85(3), 30-33.

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 11400

Ortega, E., Giannotta, F., Latina, D., & Ciairano, S. (2012). Cultural adaptation of the Strengthening Families Program 10-14 to Italian Families. Child & Youth Care Forum, 41(2), 197-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-011-9170-6

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 11405

Segrott, J., Gillespie, D., Holliday, J., Humphreys, I., Murphy, S., Phillips, C., Reed, H., Rothwell, H., Foxcroft, D., Hood, K., Roberts, Z., Scourfield, J., Thomas, C., & Moore, L. (2014). Preventing substance misuse: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of the Strengthening Families Programme 10-14 UK (SFP 10-14 UK). BMC Public Health, 14, Article 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-49

Segrott, J., Murphy, S., Rothwell, H., Scourfield, J., Foxcroft, D., Gillespie, D., Holliday, J., Hood, K., Hurlow, C., Morgan-Trimmer, S., Phillips, C., Reed, H., Roberts, Z., & Moore, L. (2017). An application of extended normalisation process theory in a randomised controlled trial of a complex social intervention: Process evaluation of the Strengthening Families Programme (10-14) in Wales, UK. SSM - Population Health, 3, 255-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2017.01.002

Segrott, J., Rothwell, H., Murphy, S., Morgan-Trimmer, S., Scourfield, J., Holliday, J., Thomas, C., Gillespie, D., Roberts, Z., Foxcroft, D., Hood, K., Phillips, C., Reed, H., Humphreys, I., & Moore, L. (2014). Fidelity of implementation of the Strengthening Families Programme 10-14 UK in Wales UK: A mixed-method process evaluation within a randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Public Health, 24(Suppl. 2), 184. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cku163.072

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 11406

Segrott, J., Holliday, J., Rothwell, H., Foxcroft, D., Murphy, S., Scourfield, J., Hood, K., & Moore, L. (2014). Cultural adaptation and intervention integrity: A response to Skärstrand, Sundell and Andréasson. European Journal of Public Health, 24(3), 354-355. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cku039

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 11411

Spoth, R., Yoo, S., Kahn, J., & Redmond, C., (1996). A model of the effects of protective parent and peer factors on young adolescent alcohol refusal skills. Journal of Primary Prevention, 16(4), 373-394. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02411742

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11413

Whitesell, N. R., Mousseau, A. C., Keane, E. M., Asdigian, N. L., Tuitt, N., Morse, B., Zacher, T., Dick, R., Mitchell, C. M., & Kaufman, C. E. (2019). Integrating community-engagement and a multiphase optimization strategy framework: Adapting substance use prevention for American Indian families. Prevention Science, 20, 1136–1146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01036-y

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 12940

Kumpfer, K. L., Greene, J. A., Bates, R. F., Cofrin, K., Whiteside, H. O. (2006). State of New Jersey Strengthening Families Program Substance Abuse Prevention Initiative: Year Two program evaluation report. Lutra Group.

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible publication source (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.2).