Multisystemic Therapy

Mental Health Substance Use Prevention or Treatment Well-Supported

Multisystemic Therapy (MST) is an intensive treatment for troubled youth delivered in multiple settings. This program aims to promote pro-social behavior and reduce criminal activity, mental health symptomology, out-of-home placements, and illicit substance use in 12- to 17-year-old youth. The MST program addresses the core causes of delinquent and antisocial conduct by identifying key drivers of the behaviors through an ecological assessment of the youth, his or her family, and school and community. The intervention strategies are personalized to address the identified drivers. The program is delivered for an average of three to five months, and services are available 24/7, which enables timely crisis management and allows families to choose which times will work best for them. Master’s level therapists from licensed MST providers take on only a small caseload at any given time so that they can be available to meet their clients’ needs.


MST 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 Last Reviewed (Handbook Version 1.0): Feb 2020


Sources

The program or service description, target population, and program and service delivery and implementation information was informed by the following sources: The California Evidence-based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare, Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, the program or service developer’s website, the program or service manual, and the studies reviewed.

 

Program/Service Webpage Updated: Dec 2020


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

This program provides services to youth between the ages of 12 and 17 and their families. Target populations include youth who are at risk for or are engaging in delinquent activity or substance misuse, experience mental health issues, and are at-risk for out-of-home placement.

Dosage

Treatment using MST typically involves multiple weekly visits between the therapist and family, over an average timespan of 3 to 5 months. The intensity of services can vary based on clinical needs. The therapist and family work together to determine how often and when services should be provided throughout the course of treatment.

Location/Delivery Setting
Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings

Therapists can deliver the program in multiple settings, including home, school, and community. Therapists may also work directly with these settings as part of the treatment plan.

Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research

  • Home
  • Community Center (e.g., religious or recreational facility)
  • School

Education, Certifications and Training

MST is delivered by therapists who work for licensed MST teams and organizations. MST therapists, supervisors, and other staff complete an initial five day training. This training is provided by Ph.D. and Master's level mental-health specialists. Therapists that deliver MST also participate in ongoing trainings. These include quarterly clinically-focused booster sessions that aim to refresh MST skills and weekly consultations provided by MST experts. MST teams use a structured fidelity assessment approach to ensure clinical service delivery is consistent with the MST model.  

For more information, please visit the MST Training webpage.

Program or Service Documentation
Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review

Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M., Rowland, M. D., & Cunningham, P. B. (2009). Multisystemic Therapy for antisocial behavior in children and adolescents (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Available languages

Materials are available in languages other than English, including Norwegian, several other European languages, and Spanish.

Other supporting materials

Training Materials

For More Information

Website: http://www.mstservices.com/

Phone: (843) 856-8226

Email: info@mstservices.com


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 Multisystemic Therapy
Identified in Search 28
Eligible for Review 16
Rated High 7
Rated Moderate 3
Rated Low 5
Reviewed Only for Risk of Harm 1

Outcome Effect Size Effect Size more info
and Implied Percentile Effect Implied Percentile Effect more info 		N of Studies (Findings) N of Participants Summary of Findings
Child permanency: Out-of-home placement 0.24
9 		3 (5) 1471 Favorable: 2
No Effect: 3
Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning 0.22
8 		7 (82) 1415 Favorable: 23
No Effect: 58
Unfavorable: 1
Child well-being: Social functioning 0.03
1 		4 (14) 1002 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 14
Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Cognitive functions and abilities 0.13
5 		1 (3) 486 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 3
Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Substance use 0.09
3 		2 (14) 610 Favorable: 1
No Effect: 13
Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Delinquent behavior 0.27
10 		10 (82) 2467 Favorable: 17
No Effect: 62
Unfavorable: 3
Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices 0.12
4 		2 (46) 816 Favorable: 12
No Effect: 34
Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health 0.29
11 		3 (5) 826 Favorable: 3
No Effect: 2
Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Family functioning 0.16
6 		4 (21) 912 Favorable: 5
No Effect: 16
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.

The findings reported for this program or service are derived from eligible, prioritized studies rated as moderate or high on study design and execution and do not represent the findings from all eligible studies of the program or service. Learn more on the FAQ page.

Outcome Effect Size Effect Size more info
and Implied Percentile Effect Implied Percentile Effect more info 		N of Studies (Findings) N of Participants Summary of Findings Months after treatment
when outcome measured Months after treatment when outcome measured more info
Child permanency: Out-of-home placement 0.24
9 		3 (5) 1471 Favorable: 2
No Effect: 3
Unfavorable: 0
 -
Study 10092 - MST vs. Management As Usual (Fonagy, 2018)
Any Out-of-home Placement -0.14
-5 		- 675 - 14
Time to First Offense (Survival Analysis) Null
not calculated 		- 679 - 14
Study 10015 - Drug Court with MST vs. Drug Court with Usual Community Services (Henggeler, 2006)
Days in Out-of-Home Placement 0.23
9 		- 76 - 8
Study 10113 - MST vs. Usual Services (Vidal, 2017)
Out-of-home Placement Rate (Survival Analysis) Favorable *
not calculated 		- 716 - 0
Any Out-of-home Placement 0.44 *
17 		- 716 - 0
Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning 0.22
8 		7 (82) 1415 Favorable: 23
No Effect: 58
Unfavorable: 1
 -
Study 10013 - MST vs. Treatment As Usual (Asscher, 2013)
Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing Problems 0.20
8 		- 256 - 0
Disruptive Behavior Disorder Rating Scale: Conduct Disorder 0.33 *
12 		- 256 - 0
Disruptive Behavior Disorder Rating Scale: Oppositional Defiant Disorder 0.33 *
12 		- 256 - 0
Youth Self Report: Externalizing Problems 0.21
8 		- 256 - 0
Self-Perception Profile for Children: Self-Esteem 0.07
2 		- 256 - 0
Children's Automatic Thought Questionnaire: Personal Failure -0.35 *
-13 		- 256 - 0
Children's Automatic Thought Questionnaire: Hostility 0.25
9 		- 256 - 0
Study 10013 - MST vs. Treatment As Usual (Asscher, 2014)
Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing Problems 0.54 *
20 		- 256 - 6
Disruptive Behavior Disorder Rating Scale: Conduct Disorder 0.57 *
21 		- 256 - 6
Disruptive Behavior Disorder Rating Scale: Oppositional Defiant Disorder 0.73 *
26 		- 256 - 6
Youth Self Report: Externalizing Problems 0.36 *
14 		- 256 - 6
Study 10021 - MST vs. Usual Services (Borduin, 1995 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting)
SCL-90-R Global Severity Index (Adolescent) 0.32
12 		- 126 - 0
Study 10013 - MST vs. Treatment As Usual (Dekovic, 2012)
Externalizing Problems: Composite Score (Self-Report and Observed) 0.34 *
13 		- 256 - 0
Study 10092 - MST vs. Management As Usual (Fonagy, 2018)
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Conduct Problems (Child Report) 0.12
4 		- 554 - 2
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Conduct Problems (Parent Report) 0.25 *
9 		- 558 - 2
Inventory of Callous and Unemotional Traits (Child Report) 0.10
3 		- 560 - 2
Inventory of Callous and Unemotional Traits (Parent Report) 0.39 *
15 		- 560 - 2
Level of Expressed Emotion (Child Report) 0.14
5 		- 560 - 2
Antisocial Beliefs and Attitudes Scale 0.07
2 		- 560 - 2
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Total Problems (Child Report) 0.06
2 		- 554 - 2
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Impact Score (Child Report) 0.01
0 		- 554 - 2
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Emotional Problems (Child Report) 0.11
4 		- 554 - 2
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Hyperactivity or Inattention (Child Report) 0.04
1 		- 554 - 2
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Prosocial Behavior (Child Report) 0.02
0 		- 554 - 2
Moods and Feelings Questionnaire - Short Form (Child Report) 0.17 *
6 		- 560 - 2
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Total Problems (Parent Report) 0.29 *
11 		- 558 - 2
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Impact Score (Parent Report) 0.21 *
8 		- 558 - 2
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Emotional Problems (Parent Report) 0.23 *
9 		- 558 - 2
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Hyperactivity or Inattention (Parent Report) 0.17 *
6 		- 558 - 2
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Prosocial Behavior (Parent Report) 0.23 *
9 		- 558 - 2
Conners CBRS: ADHD Rating Scale (Parent Report) 0.35 *
13 		- 560 - 2
Any School Exclusions in Past 6 Months 0.00
0 		- 684 - 2
Development and Well-Being Assessment: Any Disorder 0.17
6 		- 487 - 8
Development and Well-Being Assessment: Conduct Disorder 0.06
2 		- 487 - 8
Development and Well-Being Assessment: ADHD 0.21
8 		- 487 - 8
Development and Well-Being Assessment: Major Depression -0.12
-4 		- 487 - 8
Development and Well-Being Assessment: Anxiety Disorder 0.11
4 		- 487 - 8
Development and Well-Being Assessment: Conduct Disorder With Anxiety 0.13
5 		- 487 - 8
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Conduct Problems (Parent Report) 0.09
3 		- 483 - 8
Inventory of Callous and Unemotional Traits (Child Report) 0.06
2 		- 486 - 8
Inventory of Callous and Unemotional Traits (Parent Report) 0.04
1 		- 486 - 8
Level of Expressed Emotion (Child Report) 0.04
1 		- 486 - 8
Antisocial Beliefs and Attitudes Scale 0.03
1 		- 486 - 8
Moods and Feelings Questionnaire - Short Form (Child Report) 0.19 *
7 		- 486 - 8
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Total Problems (Parent Report) 0.17
6 		- 483 - 8
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Impact Score (Parent Report) 0.10
4 		- 483 - 8
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Emotional Problems (Parent Report) 0.21 *
8 		- 483 - 8
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Hyperactivity or Inattention (Parent Report) 0.15
5 		- 483 - 8
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Prosocial Behavior (Parent Report) -0.13
-5 		- 483 - 8
Conners CBRS: ADHD Rating Scale (Parent Report) 0.10
3 		- 486 - 8
Any School Exclusions in Past 6 Months 0.04
1 		- 684 - 8
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Conduct Problems (Child Report) 0.04
1 		- 414 - 14
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Conduct Problems (Parent Report) 0.06
2 		- 441 - 14
Inventory of Callous and Unemotional Traits (Child Report) 0.20 *
7 		- 551 - 14
Inventory of Callous and Unemotional Traits (Parent Report) 0.06
2 		- 551 - 14
Level of Expressed Emotion (Child Report) 0.05
2 		- 551 - 14
Antisocial Beliefs and Attitudes Scale -0.11
-4 		- 451 - 14
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Total Problems (Child Report) 0.09
3 		- 414 - 14
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Emotional Problems (Child Report) 0.10
3 		- 414 - 14
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Hyperactivity or Inattention (Child Report) 0.06
2 		- 414 - 14
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Prosocial Behavior (Child Report) -0.03
-1 		- 414 - 14
Moods and Feelings Questionnaire - Short Form (Child Report) 0.05
1 		- 451 - 14
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Total Problems (Parent Report) 0.06
2 		- 441 - 14
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Impact Score (Parent Report) 0.06
2 		- 441 - 14
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Emotional Problems (Parent Report) 0.15
6 		- 441 - 14
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Hyperactivity or Inattention (Parent Report) 0.00
0 		- 441 - 14
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Prosocial Behavior (Parent Report) -0.13
-5 		- 441 - 14
Conners CBRS: ADHD Rating Scale (Parent Report) 0.06
2 		- 451 - 14
Conners CBRS: ADHD Rating Scale (Teacher Report) Null
not calculated 		- 177 - 14
Any School Exclusions in Past 6 Months 0.21
8 		- 684 - 14
Study 10026 - MST vs. Usual Services (Henggeler, 1992)
SCL-90 0.28
10 		- 56 - 0
Study 10027 - MST vs. Usual Services (Henggeler, 1997)
Brief Symptom Inventory: Global Severity Index (Youth) 0.50 *
19 		- 140 - 0
Revised Behavior Problems Checklist 0.09
3 		- 140 - 0
Study 10015 - Drug Court with MST vs. Drug Court with Usual Community Services (Henggeler, 2006)
Child Behavior Checklist: Total Problem Behavior 0.19
7 		- 57 - 0
Child Behavior Checklist: Total Problem Behavior 0.05
1 		- 57 - 8
Study 10013 - MST vs. Treatment As Usual (Manders, 2013)
Antisocial Process Screening Device: Narcissism 0.12
4 		- 256 - 0
Antisocial Process Screening Device: Impulsiveness 0.27 *
10 		- 256 - 0
Inventory of Callous and Unemotional Traits: Callous/Unemotional Traits 0.23
9 		- 256 - 0
Study 10018 - MST vs. Regular Child Welfare Services (Ogden, 2004)
Composite Internalizing Behavior Score 0.49 *
18 		- 96 - 0
Composite Externalizing Problems 0.32
12 		- 96 - 0
Study 10018 - MST vs. Regular Child Welfare Services (Ogden, 2006)
Child Behavior Checklist: Total Problem Behavior 0.51 *
19 		- 69 - 18
Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing Problems 0.23
9 		- 69 - 18
Child well-being: Social functioning 0.03
1 		4 (14) 1002 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 14
Unfavorable: 0
 -
Study 10013 - MST vs. Treatment As Usual (Asscher, 2013)
Involvement with Deviant Peers -0.09
-3 		- 256 - 0
Involvement with Prosocial Peers 0.24
9 		- 256 - 0
Study 10092 - MST vs. Management As Usual (Fonagy, 2018)
Self-reported Delinquency: Peer Delinquency -0.03
-1 		- 550 - 2
Self-reported Delinquency: Peer Delinquency 0.03
1 		- 473 - 8
Self-reported Delinquency: Peer Delinquency 0.01
0 		- 446 - 14
Study 10026 - MST vs. Usual Services (Henggeler, 1992)
Child Behavior Checklist: Social Competence 0.25
9 		- 56 - 0
Revised Behavior Problems Checklist: Total Problems 0.03
1 		- 56 - 0
Study 10027 - MST vs. Usual Services (Henggeler, 1997)
Missouri Peer Relations Inventory: Emotional Bonding (Parent Report) 0.01
0 		- 140 - 0
Missouri Peer Relations Inventory: Aggression (Parent Report) 0.23
9 		- 140 - 0
Missouri Peer Relations Inventory: Social Maturity (Parent Report) -0.11
-4 		- 140 - 0
Missouri Peer Relations Inventory: Emotional Bonding (Child Report) -0.04
-1 		- 140 - 0
Missouri Peer Relations Inventory: Aggression (Child Report) -0.22
-8 		- 140 - 0
Missouri Peer Relations Inventory: Social Maturity (Child Report) -0.02
0 		- 140 - 0
Parent Peer Conformity Inventory: Antisocial Peer Conformity Index -0.07
-2 		- 140 - 0
Child well-being: Cognitive functions and abilities 0.13
5 		1 (3) 486 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 3
Unfavorable: 0
 -
Study 10092 - MST vs. Management As Usual (Fonagy, 2018)
Conners CBRS: Language and Learning Disorder (Parent Report) 0.14
5 		- 451 - 2
Conners CBRS: Language and Learning Disorder (Parent Report) 0.11
4 		- 486 - 8
Conners CBRS: Language and Learning Disorder (Parent Report) 0.13
5 		- 451 - 14
Child well-being: Substance use 0.09
3 		2 (14) 610 Favorable: 1
No Effect: 13
Unfavorable: 0
 -
Study 10092 - MST vs. Management As Usual (Fonagy, 2018)
Self-reported Delinquency: Variety of Substance Misuse 0.27 *
10 		- 550 - 2
Self-reported Delinquency: Volume of Substance Misuse 0.04
1 		- 550 - 2
Self-reported Delinquency: Variety of Substance Misuse 0.04
1 		- 473 - 8
Self-reported Delinquency: Volume of Substance Misuse 0.01
0 		- 473 - 8
Self-reported Delinquency: Variety of Substance Misuse 0.09
3 		- 446 - 14
Self-reported Delinquency: Volume of Substance Misuse 0.01
0 		- 446 - 14
Study 10015 - Drug Court with MST vs. Drug Court with Usual Community Services (Henggeler, 2006)
Form 90: Self-Reported Alcohol Use in the Previous 90 Days 0.14
5 		- 60 - 0
Form 90: Self-Reported Alcohol Use in the Previous 90 Days -0.01
0 		- 60 - 8
Form 90: Self-Reported Heavy Alcohol Use in the Previous 90 Days 0.18
7 		- 60 - 0
Form 90: Self-Reported Heavy Alcohol Use in the Previous 90 Days 0.37
14 		- 60 - 8
Form 90: Self-Reported Marijuana Use in the Previous 90 Days 0.05
1 		- 60 - 0
Form 90: Self-Reported Marijuana Use in the Previous 90 Days 0.34
13 		- 60 - 8
Form 90: Self-Reported Polydrug Use in the Previous 90 Days 0.09
3 		- 60 - 0
Form 90: Self-Reported Polydrug Use in the Previous 90 Days 0.50
19 		- 60 - 8
Child well-being: Delinquent behavior 0.27
10 		10 (82) 2467 Favorable: 17
No Effect: 62
Unfavorable: 3
 -
Study 10013 - MST vs. Treatment As Usual (Asscher, 2013)
Self-Report Delinquency Scale: Violent Offending 0.00
0 		- 256 - 0
Self-Report Delinquency Scale: Property Offenses 0.31 *
12 		- 256 - 0
Study 10013 - MST vs. Treatment As Usual (Asscher, 2014)
Self-Report Delinquency Scale: Violent Offending 0.05
2 		- 256 - 6
Self-Report Delinquency Scale: Property Offenses 0.41 *
15 		- 256 - 6
Recidivism: At Least One Arrest in Past 6 Months -0.14
-5 		- 201 - 6
Recidivism: Number of Arrests in the Past 6 Months 0.00
0 		- 201 - 6
Recidivism: At Least One Arrest in the Past 24 Months -0.22
-8 		- 192 - 24
Recidivism: Number of Arrests in the Past 24 Months 0.00
0 		- 192 - 24
Study 10021 - MST vs. Usual Services (Borduin, 1995 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting)
Proportion of Youth Not Arrested (Survival Curve) Favorable *
not calculated 		- 176 - 48
Arrested One or More Times: Any Offense 1.18 *
38 		- 176 - 48
Number of Arrests: Violent Crimes Favorable *
not calculated 		- 176 - 48
Study 10024 - MST vs. Usual Services (Butler, 2011)
% With Any Offense In Past 6 Months 0.71 *
26 		- 107 - 0
% With Violent Offense In Past 6 Months 0.48
18 		- 107 - 0
% With Any Non-Violent Offense In Past 6 Months 0.21
8 		- 107 - 0
Average Number of All Offenses In Past 6 Months 0.32
12 		- 107 - 0
Average Number of Violent Offenses In Past 6 Months 0.37
14 		- 107 - 0
Average Number of Non-Violent Offenses In Past 6 Months 0.16
6 		- 107 - 0
% With Any Offense In Past 6 Months 0.11
4 		- 104 - 6
% With Violent Offense In Past 6 Months -0.04
-1 		- 104 - 6
% With Any Non-Violent Offense In Past 6 Months 0.21
8 		- 104 - 6
Average Number of All Offenses In Past 6 Months 0.07
2 		- 104 - 6
Average Number of Violent Offenses In Past 6 Months -0.10
-4 		- 104 - 6
Average Number of Non-Violent Offenses In Past 6 Months 0.18
7 		- 104 - 6
% With Any Offense In Past 6 Months 0.26
10 		- 101 - 12
% With Violent Offense In Past 6 Months 0.61
22 		- 101 - 12
% With Any Non-Violent Offense In Past 6 Months 0.21
8 		- 101 - 12
Average Number of All Offenses In Past 6 Months 0.22
8 		- 101 - 12
Average Number of Violent Offenses In Past 6 Months 0.25
10 		- 101 - 12
Average Number of Non-Violent Offenses In Past 6 Months 0.18
7 		- 101 - 12
% With Any Offense In Past 6 Months 1.12 *
36 		- 99 - 18
% With Violent Offense In Past 6 Months 0.95
32 		- 99 - 18
% With Any Non-Violent Offense In Past 6 Months 1.07 *
35 		- 99 - 18
Average Number of All Offenses In Past 6 Months 0.68 *
25 		- 99 - 18
Average Number of Violent Offenses In Past 6 Months 0.32
12 		- 99 - 18
Average Number of Non-Violent Offenses In Past 6 Months 0.68 *
25 		- 99 - 18
Study 10092 - MST vs. Management As Usual (Fonagy, 2018)
No Offending Behavior in Past 6 Months: All Crimes -0.01
0 		- 679 - 2
No Offending Behavior in Past 6 Months: Violent Crimes 0.10
3 		- 679 - 2
No Offending Behavior in Past 6 Months: Non-Violent Crimes 0.11
4 		- 679 - 2
Number of Crimes in Past 6 Months: All Crimes 0.14
5 		- 679 - 2
Number of Crimes in Past 6 Months: Violent Crimes 0.00
0 		- 679 - 2
Number of Crimes in Past 6 Months: Non-Violent Crimes 0.13
5 		- 679 - 2
No Offending Behavior in Past 12 Months: All Crimes -0.10
-4 		- 679 - 8
No Offending Behavior in Past 6 Months: Violent Crimes 0.04
1 		- 679 - 8
No Offending Behavior in Past 6 Months: Non-Violent Crimes -0.13
-5 		- 679 - 8
Number of Crimes in Past 6 Months: All Crimes 0.07
2 		- 679 - 8
Number of Crimes in Past 6 Months: Violent Crimes 0.00
0 		- 679 - 8
Number of Crimes in Past 6 Months: Non-Violent Crimes -0.13
-5 		- 679 - 8
No Offending Behavior in Past 6 Months: All Crimes -0.30 *
-11 		- 679 - 14
No Offending Behavior in Past 6 Months: Violent Crimes -0.14
-5 		- 679 - 14
No Offending Behavior in Past 6 Months: Non-Violent Crimes -0.22
-8 		- 679 - 14
Number of Crimes in Past 6 Months: All Crimes -0.15
-5 		- 679 - 14
Number of Crimes in Past 6 Months: Violent Crimes -0.19 *
-7 		- 679 - 14
Number of Crimes in Past 6 Months: Non-Violent Crimes -0.29 *
-11 		- 679 - 14
Self-reported Delinquency: Variety of Delinquent Acts 0.04
1 		- 550 - 2
Self-reported Delinquency: Volume of Delinquent Acts 0.01
0 		- 550 - 2
Self-reported Delinquency: Variety of Delinquent Acts 0.01
0 		- 473 - 8
Self-reported Delinquency: Volume of Delinquent Acts 0.01
0 		- 473 - 8
Self-reported Delinquency: Variety of Delinquent Acts -0.06
-2 		- 446 - 14
Self-reported Delinquency: Volume of Delinquent Acts 0.00
0 		- 446 - 14
Study 10026 - MST vs. Usual Services (Henggeler, 1992)
Arrests 0.36
13 		- 56 - 11
Incarceration 0.54
20 		- 56 - 0
Self-Report Delinquency Scale 0.41
15 		- 56 - 0
Study 10026 - MST vs. Usual Services (Henggeler, 1993)
Arrests 0.81 *
29 		- 84 - 0
Study 10027 - MST vs. Usual Services (Henggeler, 1997)
Self-Report Delinquency Scale: General Delinquency 0.10
4 		- 140 - 0
Self-Report Delinquency Scale: Offense Index 0.40 *
15 		- 140 - 0
Annualized Rate of Arrests 0.13
5 		- 140 - 16
Annualized Days of Incarceration 0.44 *
16 		- 140 - 16
Study 10015 - Drug Court with MST vs. Drug Court with Usual Community Services (Henggeler, 2006)
Self-Report Delinquency Scale: Status Offenses 0.14
5 		- 58 - 0
Self-Report Delinquency Scale: Status Offenses -0.27
-10 		- 58 - 8
Self-Report Delinquency Scale: General Theft 0.13
5 		- 58 - 0
Self-Report Delinquency Scale: General Theft 0.15
5 		- 58 - 8
Self-Report Delinquency Scale: Crimes against Persons -0.20
-7 		- 58 - 0
Self-Report Delinquency Scale: Crimes against Persons -0.29
-11 		- 58 - 8
Arrests 0.03
1 		- 76 - 8
Study 10018 - MST vs. Regular Child Welfare Services (Ogden, 2006)
Self-Report Delinquency Scale (Youth Report) 0.14
5 		- 69 - 18
Study 10113 - MST vs. Usual Services (Vidal, 2017)
Adjudication Rate (Survival Analysis) Favorable *
not calculated 		- 716 - 0
Rate of Placement in Juvenile Training School (Survival Analysis) Favorable *
not calculated 		- 716 - 0
Adjudicated offense during followup period 0.49 *
18 		- 716 - 0
Placement in Juvenile Training School Ever During Follow-up 0.47 *
17 		- 716 - 0
Study 10020 - MST vs. Usual Services (Weiss, 2013)
Time to First Felony Arrest (Survival Analysis) Null
not calculated 		- 164 - 24
Time to First Misdemeanor Arrest (Survival Analysis) Null
not calculated 		- 164 - 24
Time to First Arrest (Survival Analysis) Null
not calculated 		- 164 - 24
Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices 0.12
4 		2 (46) 816 Favorable: 12
No Effect: 34
Unfavorable: 0
 -
Study 10013 - MST vs. Treatment As Usual (Asscher, 2013)
Positive Discipline: Composite Score (Parent Report) 0.32 *
12 		- 256 - 0
Inept Discipline: Composite Score (Parent Report) -0.06
-2 		- 256 - 0
Quality of Parent-Adolescent Relationship: Composite Score (Parent Report) 0.21
8 		- 256 - 0
Positive Discipline: Composite Score (Child Report) 0.21
8 		- 256 - 0
Inept Discipline: Composite Score (Child Report) -0.19
-7 		- 256 - 0
Quality of Parent-Adolescent Relationship: Composite Score (Child Report) 0.12
4 		- 256 - 0
Coder Impressions Inventory: Positive Parenting Behavior 0.37 *
14 		- 256 - 0
Coder Impressions Inventory: Inept Discipline 0.13
5 		- 256 - 0
Coder Impressions Inventory: Quality of Parent-Adolescent Relationship 0.28 *
10 		- 256 - 0
Competence subscale: 15 items answer on 6-point scale (1=completely disagree, 6=completely agree). 0.34 *
13 		- 256 - 0
Study 10013 - MST vs. Treatment As Usual (Dekovic, 2012)
Positive Discipline: Composite Score (Self-Report and Observed) 0.38 *
14 		- 256 - 0
Inept Discipline: Composite Score (Self-Report and Observed) 0.12
4 		- 256 - 0
Adolescent-Parent Relationship Quality: Composite Score (Self-Report and Observed) 0.40 *
15 		- 256 - 0
Study 10092 - MST vs. Management As Usual (Fonagy, 2018)
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Problems of Monitoring and Supervision (Child Report) 0.04
1 		- 553 - 2
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Problems of Monitoring and Supervision (Parent Report) 0.22 *
8 		- 560 - 2
Loeber Parental Support Score (Parent Report) 0.33 *
13 		- 550 - 2
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Parental Involvement (Parent Report) 0.22 *
8 		- 560 - 2
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Positive Parenting (Parent Report) 0.09
3 		- 560 - 2
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Corporal Punishment (Parent Report) 0.12
4 		- 560 - 2
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Inconsistent Discipline (Parent Report) 0.21 *
8 		- 560 - 2
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Parent Involvement (Child Report) 0.11
4 		- 553 - 2
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Positive Parenting (Child Report) 0.10
3 		- 553 - 2
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Corporal Punishment (Child Report) 0.01
0 		- 553 - 2
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Inconsistent Discipline (Child Report) 0.09
3 		- 553 - 2
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Problems of Monitoring and Supervision (Child Report) -0.01
0 		- 479 - 8
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Problems of Monitoring and Supervision (Parent Report) 0.03
1 		- 486 - 8
Loeber Parental Support Score (Parent Report) 0.14
5 		- 473 - 8
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Parent Involvement (Child Report) -0.04
-1 		- 479 - 8
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Positive Parenting (Child Report) 0.06
2 		- 479 - 8
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Corporal Punishment (Child Report) 0.02
0 		- 479 - 8
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Inconsistent Discipline (Child Report) 0.14
5 		- 479 - 8
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Parental Involvement (Parent Report) -0.03
-1 		- 486 - 8
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Positive Parenting (Parent Report) 0.00
0 		- 486 - 8
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Corporal Punishment (Parent Report) 0.17
6 		- 486 - 8
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Inconsistent Discipline (Parent Report) 0.19 *
7 		- 486 - 8
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Problems of Monitoring and Supervision (Child Report) -0.05
-1 		- 441 - 14
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Problems of Monitoring and Supervision (Parent Report) -0.03
-1 		- 551 - 14
Loeber Parental Support Score (Parent Report) 0.11
4 		- 446 - 14
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Parental Involvement (Parent Report) 0.02
0 		- 451 - 14
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Positive Parenting (Parent Report) -0.01
0 		- 451 - 14
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Corporal Punishment (Parent Report) 0.02
0 		- 451 - 14
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Inconsistent Discipline (Parent Report) 0.21 *
8 		- 451 - 14
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Parent Involvement (Child Report) 0.14
5 		- 441 - 14
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Positive Parenting (Child Report) 0.07
2 		- 441 - 14
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Corporal Punishment (Child Report) 0.06
2 		- 441 - 14
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Inconsistent Discipline (Child Report) 0.09
3 		- 441 - 14
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health 0.29
11 		3 (5) 826 Favorable: 3
No Effect: 2
Unfavorable: 0
 -
Study 10021 - MST vs. Usual Services (Borduin, 1995 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting)
SCL-90-R Global Severity Index (Mothers) 0.39 *
15 		- 126 - 0
Study 10092 - MST vs. Management As Usual (Fonagy, 2018)
General Health Questionnaire 0.40 *
15 		- 560 - 2
General Health Questionnaire 0.21 *
8 		- 486 - 8
General Health Questionnaire 0.16
6 		- 451 - 14
Study 10027 - MST vs. Usual Services (Henggeler, 1997)
Brief Symptom Inventory: Global Severity Index (Parent) 0.31
12 		- 140 - 0
Adult well-being: Family functioning 0.16
6 		4 (21) 912 Favorable: 5
No Effect: 16
Unfavorable: 0
 -
Study 10021 - MST vs. Usual Services (Borduin, 1995 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting)
FACES-II: Adaptability 0.45 *
17 		- 126 - 0
Study 10092 - MST vs. Management As Usual (Fonagy, 2018)
FACES-IV: Family Satisfaction (Parent Report) 0.45 *
17 		- 550 - 2
FACES-IV: Family Cohesion (Parent Report) 0.28 *
11 		- 550 - 2
FACES-IV: Family Communication (Parent Report) 0.33 *
13 		- 550 - 2
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale - Short Form (Parent Report) 0.12
4 		- 550 - 2
FACES-IV: Family Satisfaction (Parent Report) 0.28 *
10 		- 473 - 8
FACES-IV: Family Cohesion (Parent Report) 0.15
6 		- 473 - 8
FACES-IV: Family Communication (Parent Report) 0.13
5 		- 473 - 8
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale - Short Form (Parent Report) -0.01
0 		- 473 - 8
FACES-IV: Family Satisfaction (Parent Report) 0.01
0 		- 446 - 14
FACES-IV: Family Cohesion (Parent Report) 0.04
1 		- 446 - 14
FACES-IV: Family Communication (Parent Report) 0.08
3 		- 446 - 14
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale - Short Form (Parent Report) 0.01
0 		- 446 - 14
Study 10027 - MST vs. Usual Services (Henggeler, 1997)
Family Assessment Measure-III: General Index (Parent) 0.27
10 		- 140 - 0
Family Assessment Measure-III: General Index (Child) -0.04
-1 		- 140 - 0
Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales-III: Cohesion (Parent) 0.13
5 		- 140 - 0
Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales-III: Adaptability (Parent) -0.26
-10 		- 140 - 0
Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales-III: Cohesion (Child) -0.05
-2 		- 140 - 0
Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales-III: Adaptability (Child) 0.04
1 		- 140 - 0
Study 10018 - MST vs. Regular Child Welfare Services (Ogden, 2004)
FACES-III: Adaptability Composite Score -0.19
-7 		- 96 - 0
FACES-III: Cohesion Composite Score 0.16
6 		- 96 - 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. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.

The findings reported for this program or service are derived from eligible, prioritized studies rated as moderate or high on study design and execution and do not represent the findings from all eligible studies of the program or service. Learn more on the FAQ page.

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 Location more info Study Year Study Year more info Age or Grade-level Age or Grade-level more info Race, Ethnicity, Nationality Race, Ethnicity, Nationality more info Gender Gender more info Populations of Interest* Populations of Interest more info Household Socioeconomic Status Household Socioeconomic Status more info
Study 10113 - MST vs. Usual Services
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Rhode Island, USA 2008 Average age: 15 years; Age range: 11-17 years 49% White
29% Hispanic
14% Black
8% Multiracial 		57% Male 71% Assigned to a Family Service Unit or Intake worker at referral; 36% Had a history of maltreatment; 57% Had a history of out-of-home placement; Average number of placement episodes: 1 episode (Range: 0-5 episodes); Average number of placement settings during the first out-of-home placement: 2 settings (Range: 0-37 settings);
25% Assigned to a Juvenile Probation Officer; 26% Previously adjudicated; 27% Placed in a juvenile training school 		--
Study 10092 - MST vs. Management As Usual
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
England, UK 2010 Average age: 14 years 78% White British/European
11% Black African/Afro-Caribbean
8% Mixed/Other Ethnicity
2% Asian 		64% Male
37% Female 		100% Participants with moderate-to-severe antisocial behavior; Most common comorbid diagnoses: 78% Conduct disorder, 81% Any conduct disorder, 30% ADHD combined;
34% Non-offenders on referral; Mean total number of offenses in year before referral: 1 offense, Mean violent offenses: 0.4 offenses, Mean non-violent offenses: 0.6 offenses; 1% With custodial sentences 		--
Study 10015 - Drug Court with MST vs. Drug Court with Usual Community Services
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Charleston County, SC, USA -- Average age: 15 years 67% African American
31% White
2% Biracial 		83% Male
17% Female 		100% Met DSM–IV diagnostic criteria for alcohol or drug abuse or dependence; Youth met substance abuse or dependence criteria: 19% Alcohol, 98% Cannabis, 4% Cocaine, 21% More than two substances; 57% of youth met diagnostic criteria for one or more psychiatric disorder;
Average number of arrests prior to study entry: 4 arrests 		50% Family income of under $15,000
Study 10027 - MST vs. Usual Services
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
South Carolina, USA -- Average age: 15 years; Age range: 10-18 years 81% African American
19% Caucasian 		82% Male Average number of prior arrests: 3; 40% Had at least one prior arrest for a violent crime; 59% Had at least one previous incarceration; Average seriousness of pre-entry offenses on a 17-point scale: 9 points 40% Employed full-time or part-time (age-eligible adolescents)
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
South Carolina, USA -- Average age: 41 years; Age range: 26-76 years 81% African American 92% Female Primary caregivers for youth: 88% Mothers, 6% Grandparents, 2% Fathers, 3% Other family members, 1% Foster parents;
38% Youths lived in single-parent homes 		50% Family income less than $5,000-$10,000 per year
Study 10013 - MST vs. Treatment As Usual
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Netherlands -- Average age: 16 years; Age range: 12-18 years 55% Dutch
34% Moroccan
32% Surinamese 		73% Boys
27% Girls 		100% Referred to MST between 2006 and 2010, 71% had been arrested at least once before treatment, 64% had contact with police at some point during the year before the baseline. --
Study 10018 - MST vs. Regular Child Welfare Services
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Norway -- Average age: 15 years -- 63% Boys
37% Girls 		Referral reasons included: 53% Status offences, 37% Criminal offences, 6% School expulsions; 90% History of school truancy; 6% Referred after care from a residential treatment centre or incarceration;
Referral reasons included: 64% Emotional disturbance, 50% Substance abuse, 36% Harm to self or other;
54% Youth with a history of running away from home;
Referral reasons included: 29% Involvement as a victim or perpetrator in domestic violence, 4% Abuse or neglect; 39% Previously placed out of the home; 6% Lived in foster homes at the time of study referral 		--
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Norway -- -- 95% Norwegian -- -- --
Study 10021 - MST vs. Usual Services
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Missouri, USA -- Average age: 15 years 70% White
30% African American 		68% Male Average number of previous arrests: 4 arrests; 48% At least one arrest for a violent crime (e.g., sexual assault, assault and battery with intent to kill, aggravated assault); Mean severity of the most recent arrest: 8.8 (17-point seriousness scale; 1=truancy, 4=disorderly conduct, 8=assault/battery, 13=armed robbery, 17=murder);
6.5% Youth's primary caretaker is a step-, foster, or adoptive mother; 3% Out-of-home placement in residential facilities of the Division of Youth Services of the Missouri Department of Social Services 		--
Study 10026 - MST vs. Usual Services
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
South Carolina, USA -- Average age: 15 years 56% African-American
42% Caucasian
2% Hispanic-American 		77% Male 100% Referred based on Department of Youth Services staff judgment that the adolescent was at imminent risk for out-of-home placement because of serious criminal activity (e.g., crimes against the person, arson, other felonies) by the youth.;
Average number of previous arrests: 4; Average weeks of prior incarceration: 10; 54% At least one arrest for violent crime; 71% Incarcerated previously for at least 3 weeks 		--
Study 10020 - MST vs. Usual Services
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Southeast, USA -- Average age: 15 years; Age range: 11-18 years; Grade range: grades 7-11 60% African American
40% Caucasian 		83% Male 100% Students in self-contained behavior intervention (Moderate Intervention Program) classrooms due to serious conduct problems; 68% Previously involved with the juvenile court system --
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Southeast, USA -- Mean age: 41 years -- -- -- 50% Reported family income below $17,500
Study 10024 - MST vs. Usual Services
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
North London, England, UK 2003 Average age: 15 years 38% White British/European
33% Black African/Afro-Caribbean
25% Mixed/Other Ethnicity
22% Asian 		82% Male
18% Female 		Mean number of offenses in year before referral: 3; Mean violent offenses: 1; Mean nonviolent offenses: 2; 41% Youth with only nonviolent convictions --

“--” 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 10027

Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., Brondino, M. J., Scherer, D. G., & Hanley, J. H. (1997). Multisystemic Therapy with violent and chronic juvenile offenders and their families: The role of treatment fidelity in successful dissemination. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(5), 821-833.

Scherer, D. G., Brondino, M. J., Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., & Hanley, J. H. (1994). Multisystemic Family Preservation Therapy: Preliminary findings from a study of rural and minority serious adolescent offenders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2(4), 198-206. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106342669400200402

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 10013

Asscher, J. J., Deković, M., Manders, W. A., van der Laan, P. H., & Prins, P. J. M. (2013). A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of Multisystemic Therapy in the Netherlands: Post-treatment changes and moderator effects. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(2), 169-187.

Asscher, J. J., Deković, M., Manders, W., van der Laan, P. H., Prins, P. J. M., van Arum, S., & Dutch MST Cost-Effectiveness Study Group. (2014). Sustainability of the effects of Multisystemic Therapy for juvenile delinquents in the Netherlands: Effects on delinquency and recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(2), 227-243.

Deković, M., Asscher, J. J., Manders, W. A., Prins, P. J. M., & van der Laan, P. (2012). Within-intervention change: Mediators of intervention effects during Multisystemic Therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80(4), 574-587.

Manders, W. A., Deković, M., Asscher, J. J., van der Laan, P. H., & Prins, P. J. M. (2013). Psychopathy as predictor and moderator of Multisystemic Therapy outcomes among adolescents treated for antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(7), 1121-1132.

Asscher, J. J., Dekovic, M., Van den Akker, A. L., Prins, P. J. M., & Van der Laan, P. H. (2018). Do extremely violent juveniles respond differently to treatment? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(4), 958-977. doi:10.1177/0306624X16670951

Jansen, D. E. M. C., Vermeulen, K. M., Schuurman-Luinge, A. H., Knorth, E. J., Buskens, E., & Reijneveld, S. A. (2013). Cost-effectiveness of Multisystemic Therapy for adolescents with antisocial behaviour: Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 13, 369-369. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-369

Vermeulen, K. M., Jansen, D. E. M. C., Knorth, E. J., Buskens, E., & Reijneveld, S. A. (2017). Cost‐effectiveness of Multisystemic Therapy versus usual treatment for young people with antisocial problems. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 27(1), 89-102. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cbm.1988

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 10020

Weiss, B., Han, S., Harris, V., Catron, T., Ngo, V. K., Caron, A., . . . Guth, C. (2013). An independent randomized clinical trial of Multisystemic Therapy with non-court-referred adolescents with serious conduct problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81(6), 1027-1039. doi:10.1037/a0033928

Weiss, B., Han, S. S., Tran, N. T., Gallop, R., & Ngo, V. K. (2015). Test of “facilitation” vs. “proximal process” moderator models for the effects of Multisystemic Therapy on adolescents with severe conduct problem. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(5), 971-983. doi:619722141; 2001-95012-326.

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 10092

Fonagy, P., Butler, S., Cottrell, D., Scott, S., Pilling, S., Eisler, I., . . . Goodyer, I. M. (2018). Multisystemic Therapy versus management as usual in the treatment of adolescent antisocial behaviour (START): A pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial. The Lancet. Psychiatry, 5(2), 119-133. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30001-4

Fonagy, P., Butler, S., Goodyer, I., Cottrell, D., Scott, S., Pilling, S., . . . Haley, R. (2013). Evaluation of Multisystemic Therapy pilot services in the Systemic Therapy for At Risk Teens (START) trial: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials, 14(1), 1-9. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-14-265

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 10021

Borduin, C. M., Mann, B. J., Cone, L. T., Henggeler, S. W., Fucci, B. R., Blaske, D. M., & Williams, R. A. (1995). Multisystemic treatment of serious juvenile offenders: Long-term prevention of criminality and violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(4), 569-578.

Henggeler, S. W., Borduin, C. M., Melton, G. B., Mann, B. J., Smith, L. A., Hall, J. A., … & Fucci, B. R. (1991). Effects of Multisystemic Therapy on drug use and abuse in serious juvenile offenders: A progress report from two outcome studies. Family Dynamics of Addiction Quarterly, 1, 40-51.

Sawyer, A. M., & Borduin, C. M. (2011). Effects of Multisystemic Therapy through midlife: A 21.9-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial with serious and violent juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(5), 643-652.

Schaeffer, C. M., & Borduin, C. M. (2005). Long-term follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of Multisystemic Therapy with serious and violent juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 445-453.

Wagner, D. V., Borduin, C. M., Sawyer, A. M., & Dopp, A. R. (2014). Long-term prevention of criminality in siblings of serious and violent juvenile offenders: A 25-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of Multisystemic Therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(3), 492-499.

Johnides, B. D., Borduin, C. M., Wagner, D. V., & Dopp, A. R. (2017). Effects of Multisystemic Therapy on caregivers of serious juvenile offenders: A 20-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85(4), 323-334. doi:10.1037/ccp0000199

Klietz, S. J., Borduin, C. M., & Schaeffer, C. M. (2010). Cost-benefit analysis of Multisystemic Therapy with serious and violent juvenile offenders. Journal Of Family Psychology, 24(5), 657-666. doi:10.1037/a0020838

Dopp, A. R., Borduin, C. M., Wagner, D. V., & Sawyer, A. M. (2014). The economic impact of Multisystemic Therapy through midlife: A cost–benefit analysis with serious juvenile offenders and their siblings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(4), 694-705. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036415

Dopp, A. R., Borduin, C. M., Willroth, E. C., & Sorg, A. A. (2017). Long-term economic benefits of psychological interventions for criminality: Comparing and integrating estimation methods. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(3), 312-323. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000134

Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, S. W., Blaske, D. M., & Stein, R. J. (1990). Multisystemic treatment of adolescent sexual offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 34(2), 105-113.

Mann, B. J., Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, S. W., & Blaske, D. M. (1990). An investigation of systemic conceptualizations of parent-child coalitions and symptom change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58(3), 336-344. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.58.3.336

This study was not conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 10015

Henggeler, S. W., Halliday-Boykins, C. A., Cunningham, P. B., Randall, J., Shapiro, S. B., & Chapman, J. E. (2006). Juvenile drug court: Enhancing outcomes by integrating evidence-based treatments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(1), 42-54.

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 10024

Butler, S., Baruch, G., Hickey, N., & Fonagy, P. (2011). A randomized controlled trial of Multisystemic Therapy and a statutory therapeutic intervention for young offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 50(12), 1220-1235.e2. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2011.09.017

Cary, M., Butler, S., Baruch, G., Hickey, N., & Byford, S. (2013). Economic evaluation of Multisystemic Therapy for young people at risk for continuing criminal activity in the UK. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e61070-e61070. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0061070

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)

Studies Rated Moderate

Study 10113

Vidal, S., Steeger, C. M., Caron, C., Lasher, L., & Connell, C. M. (2017). Placement and delinquency outcomes among system-involved youth referred to Multisystemic Therapy: A propensity score matching analysis. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 44(6), 853-866. doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12064

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 10018

Ogden, T., & Hagen, K. A. (2006). Multisystemic treatment of serious behaviour problems in youth: Sustainability of effectiveness two years after intake. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 11(3), 142-149.

Ogden, T., & Hagen, K. A. (2009). What works for whom? Gender differences in intake characteristics and treatment outcomes following Multisystemic Therapy. Journal of Adolescence, 32(6), 1425-1435.

Ogden, T., & Halliday-Boykins, C. A. (2004). Multisystemic treatment of antisocial adolescents in Norway: Replication of clinical outcomes outside of the US. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 9(2), 77-83. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1475-3588.2004.00085.x

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 10026

Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., & Smith, L. A. (1992). Family preservation using Multisystemic Therapy: An effective alternative to incarcerating serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(6), 953-961.

Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., Smith, L. A., Schoenwald, S. K., & Hanley, J. H. (1993). Family preservation using multisystemic treatment: Long-term follow-up to a clinical trial with serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 2(4), 283-293.

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)

Studies Rated Low

Study 10059

Sundell, K., Hansson, K., Lofholm, C. A., Olsson, T., Gustle, L. H., & Kadesjo, C. (2008). The transportability of Multisystemic Therapy to Sweden: Short-term results from a randomized trial of conduct-disordered youths. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(4), 550-560. doi:10.1037/a0012790

Olsson, T. M. (2010). MST With conduct disordered youth in Sweden: Costs and benefits after 2 years. Research on Social Work Practice, 20(6), 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731509339028

Olsson, T. M. (2010). Intervening in youth problem behavior in Sweden: A pragmatic cost analysis of MST from a randomized trial with conduct disordered youth. International Journal of Social Welfare, 19(2), 194-205. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00653.x

This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.
Study 10025

Fain, T., & Greathouse, S. M. (2014). Effectiveness of Multisystemic Therapy for minority youth: Outcomes over 8 years in Los Angeles County. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 3(2), 30-37.

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 10093

Glisson, C., Schoenwald, S. K., Hemmelgarn, A., Green, P., Dukes, D., Armstrong, K. S., & Chapman, J. E. (2010). Randomized trial of MST and ARC in a two-level evidence-based treatment implementation strategy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(4), 537-550. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019160

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.
Study 10089

Curtis, N. M., Ronan, K. R., Heiblum, N., & Crellin, K. (2009). Dissemination and effectiveness of Multisystemic Treatment in New Zealand: A benchmarking study. Journal Of Family Psychology, 23(2), 119-129. doi:10.1037/a0014974

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 10019

Timmons-Mitchell, J., Bender, M. B., Kishna, M. A., & Mitchell, C. C. (2006). An independent effectiveness trial of Multisystemic Therapy with juvenile justice youth. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 35(2), 227-236. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3502_6

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

Studies Reviewed for Risk of Harm

Study 10014

Henggeler, S.W., Rowland, M. D., Randall, J., Ward, D. M., Pickrel, S. G., Cunningham, P. B., … & Santos, A.B. (1999). Home-based Multisystemic Therapy as an alternative to the hospitalization of youths in psychiatric crisis: Clinical outcomes. Journal of the American Academic of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38(11), 1331-1339.

Henggeler, S. W., Rowland, M. D., Pickrel, S. G., Miller, S. L., Cunningham, P. B., Santos, A. B., . . . Edwards, J. E. (1997). Investigating family-based alternatives to institution-based mental health services for youth: Lessons learned from the pilot study of a randomized field trial. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26(3), 226-233. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp2603_1

Henggeler, S. W., Rowland, M. D., Halliday-Boykins, C., Sheidow, A. J., Ward, D. M., Randall, J., . . . Edwards, J. (2003). One-year follow-up of Multisystemic Therapy as an alternative to the hospitalization of youths in psychiatric crisis. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(5), 543-551.

Huey, S. J., Jr., Henggeler, S. W., Rowland, M. D., Halliday-Boykins, C. A., Cunningham, P. B., Pickrel, S. G., & Edwards, J. (2004). Multisystemic Therapy effects on attempted suicide by youths presenting psychiatric emergencies. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43(2), 183-190.

Huey, S. J., Jr., Henggeler, S. W., Rowland, M. D., Halliday-Boykins, C. A., Cunningham, P. B., & Pickrel, S. G. (2005). Predictors of treatment response for suicidal youth referred for emergency psychiatric hospitalization. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(3), 582-589. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3403_13

Sheidow, A. J., Bradford, W. D., Henggeler, S. W., Rowland, M. D., Halliday-Boykins, C., Schoenwald, S. K., & Ward, D. M. (2004). Treatment costs for youths receiving Multisystemic Therapy or hospitalization after a psychiatric crisis. Psychiatric Services, 55(5), 548-554.

Schoenwald, S. K., Ward, D. M., Henggeler, S. W., & Rowland, M. D. (2000). Multisystemic Therapy versus hospitalization for crisis stabilization of youth: Placement outcomes 4 months postreferral. Mental Health Services Research, 2(1), 3-12.


Studies Not Eligible for Review

Study 10016

Henggeler, S. W., Letourneau, E. J., Chapman, J. E., Borduin, C. M., Schewe, P. A., & McCart, M. R. (2009). Mediators of change for Multisystemic Therapy with Juvenile Sexual Offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(3), 451-462. doi:10.1037/a0013971

Letourneau, E. J., Henggeler, S. W., Borduin, C. M., Schewe, P. A., McCart, M. R., Chapman, J. E., & Saldana, L. (2009). Multisystemic Therapy for juvenile sexual offenders: 1-year results from a randomized effectiveness trial. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(1), 89-102. doi:10.1037/a0014352

Letourneau, E. J., Henggeler, S. W., McCart, M. R., Borduin, C. M., Schewe, P. A., & Armstrong, K. S. (2013). Two-year follow-up of a randomized effectiveness trial evaluating MST for juveniles who sexually offend. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(6), 978-985. doi:10.1037/a0034710

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).

Study 10022

Borduin, C. M., Schaeffer, C. M., & Heiblum, N. (2009). A randomized clinical trial of Multisystemic Therapy with Juvenile Sexual Offenders: Effects on youth social ecology and criminal activity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(1), 26-37.

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).

Study 10028

Brown, T. L., Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Brondino, M. J., & Pickrel, S. G. (1999). Multisystemic treatment of substance abusing and dependent juvenile delinquents: Effects on school attendance at posttreatment and 6-month follow-up. Children's Services, 2(2), 81-93. doi:10.1207/s15326918cs0202_2

Cunningham, P. B., Henggeler, S. W., Brondino, M. J., & Pickrel, S. G. (1999). Testing underlying assumptions of the family empowerment perspective. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 8(4), 437-449. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021951720298

Henggeler, S. W., Clingempeel, W. G., Brondino, M. J., & Pickrel, S. G. (2002). Four-year follow-up of Multisystemic Therapy with substance-abusing and substance-dependent juvenile offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(7), 868-874. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200207000-00021

Henggeler, S. W., Pickrel, S. G., Brondino, M. J., & Crouch, J. L. (1996). Eliminating (almost) treatment dropout of substance abusing or dependent delinquents through home-based Multisystemic Therapy. The American Journal Of Psychiatry, 153(3), 427-428.

Henggeler, S. W., Pickrel, S. W., & Brondino, M. J. Multisystemic treatment of substance-abusing and -dependent delinquents: Outcomes, treatment, fidelity, and transportability. Mental Health Services Research, 1(3), 171-184.

Schoenwald, S. K., Ward, D. M., Henggeler, S. W., Pickrel, S. G., & Patel, H. (1996). Multisystemic Therapy treatment of substance abusing or dependent adolescent offenders: Costs of reducing incarceration, inpatient, and residential placement. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5(4), 431-444.

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).

Study 10058

Rowland, M. D., Halliday-Boykins, C. A., Henggeler, S. W., Cunningham, P. B., Lee, T. G., Kruesi, M. J. P., & Shapiro, S. B. (2005). A randomized trial of Multisystemic Therapy with Hawaii's Felix Class youths. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13(1), 13-23.

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).

Study 10088

Cunningham, P. B., & Henggeler, S. W. (2001). Implementation of an empirically based drug and violence prevention and intervention program in public school settings. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(2), 221-232. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3002_9

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10091

Dopp, A. R., Coen, A. S., Smith, A. B., Reno, J., Bernstein, D. H., Kerns, S. E. U., & Altschul, D. (2018). Economic impact of the statewide implementation of an evidence-based treatment: Multisystemic Therapy in New Mexico. Behavior Therapy, 49(4), 551-566. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2017.12.003

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10103

Lee, M. Y., Greene, G. J., Fraser, J. S., Edwards, S. G., Grove, D., Solovey, A. D., & Scott, P. (2013). Common and specific factors approaches to home-based treatment: I-FAST and MST. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(4), 407-418. doi:10.1007/s10488-007-0141-z

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10105

Nelson, J. R., Hurley, K. D., Synhorst, L., Epstein, M. H., Stage, S., & Buckley, J. (2009). The child outcomes of a behavior model. Exceptional Children, 76(1), 7-30.

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).

Study 10110

Stambaugh, L. F., Mustillo, S. A., Burns, B. J., Stephens, R. L., Baxter, B., Edwards, D., & DeKraai, M. (2007). Outcomes from wraparound and Multisystemic Therapy in a center for mental health services system-of-care demonstration site. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15(3), 143-155. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10634266070150030201

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10111

Swenson, C. C., Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Kaufman, K. L., & Randall, J. (1998). Changing the social ecologies of adolescent sexual offenders: Implications of the success of Multisystemic Therapy in treating serious antisocial behavior in adolescents. Child Maltreatment, 3(4), 330-338. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077559598003004005

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10237

Tolman, R. T., Mueller, C. W., Daleiden, E. L., Stumpf, R. E., & Pestle, S. L. (2008). Outcomes from Multisystemic Therapy in a statewide system of care. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 17(6), 894-908. doi:10.1007/s10826-008-9197-y

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).