Multidimensional Family Therapy

Target Population

MDFT serves adolescents and young adults (9 to 26 years old) with substance use, delinquency, mental health, academic/vocational, and emotional problems. At least one parent/guardian or parental figure must also participate in treatment. 

Dosage

MDFT intensity varies based on the setting and severity of participants’ needs. The recommended dosage ranges from 1 to 3 weekly sessions over 3 to 6 months. Each session lasts approximately 45 to 90 minutes. Additional support is provided between sessions via text and phone, as well as at community meetings (e.g., school, court, child welfare). Session length and frequency are designed to decrease over time with the goal of reducing to one session per week for the last four to six weeks of treatment. Sessions are divided roughly proportionally among those held with the adolescent/young adult, parents, and families. Additionally, community sessions are held with schools and representatives of other key systems throughout treatment (e.g., child welfare, juvenile delinquency). 

Location/Delivery Setting

Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings

MDFT can be delivered in diverse settings and systems of care including clinical offices, in-home, community settings, outpatient, intensive outpatient, inpatient and residential facilities, and schools. The model can also be integrated within non-clinical residential settings, such as boarding schools or detention centers. 

Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research

• Home
• Mental Health Center, Treatment Center, Therapist Office
• Hospital/Medical Center

Education, Certifications and Training

MDFT is delivered by therapists with master’s degrees in social work, counseling, marriage and family therapy, or related clinical fields. MDFT therapists may receive additional support from therapist assistants with bachelor’s degrees. To deliver services, therapists must participate in approximately 5 months of MDFT-specific training. This training includes three on-site trainings, weekly consultations, online education, video reviews and live supervision of the therapist’s work. Ongoing feedback of therapist adherence and competence is provided using rating systems and written tests. At the end of this training, therapists are eligible to receive an MDFT certification. Supervisor training lasts an additional 4 to 6 months. Therapists and supervisors must re-certify annually. MDFT training is delivered virtually through videoconferencing and in-person at the clinical site. 

A basic introduction to MDFT with continuing education units (CEU) is available through a 2-day introductory workshop for agencies and clinicians not seeking full MDFT Certification Training. 

There is also an MDFT Train-the-Trainer (TTT) program that includes intensive workshops, live and video review of trainer training, and support with consultation calls. 

Program or Service Documentation

Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review

MDFT International. (2025). MDFT clinical practice guide. MDFT International, Inc. 

Available languages

MDFT materials are available in English, French, German, and Spanish.

Other supporting materials

What is MDFT?

MDFT Fact Sheets

MDFT Training Programs

MDFT Training Materials

MDFT International. (2025). Getting started with MDFT. MDFT International, Inc.

MDFT International. (2025). MDFT supervision guide. MDFT International, Inc.

For More Information

Website: www.mdft.org

Phone: (786) 668-2088

Email: gdakof@mdft.org

 

Note: The details on Dosage; Location; Education, Certifications, and Training; Other Supporting Materials; and For More Information sections above are provided to website users for informational purposes only. This information is not exhaustive and may be subject to change.

Results of Search and Review	Number of Studies Identified and Reviewed for Multidimensional Family Therapy
Identified in Search	15
Eligible for Review	7
Rated High	4
Rated Moderate	1
Rated Low	2
Reviewed Only for Risk of Harm	0

Outcome	Effect Size	95% Confidence Interval	Implied Percentile Effect	N of Studies (Findings)	N of Participants	Summary of Findings
Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning	0.20	[0.04, 0.36]	7	3 (19)	667	Favorable: 7 No Effect: 12 Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Social functioning	0.48	[0.04, 0.92]	18	1 (4)	83	Favorable: 3 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Substance use	0.23	[0.09, 0.38]	9	4 (39)	809	Favorable: 20 No Effect: 17 Unfavorable: 2
Child well-being: Delinquent behavior	0.15	[-0.11, 0.40]	5	2 (41)	313	Favorable: 6 No Effect: 33 Unfavorable: 2
Child well-being: Educational achievement and attainment	0.45	[0.19, 0.72]	17	2 (9)	239	Favorable: 4 No Effect: 5 Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices	-0.01	[-0.44, 0.43]	0	1 (12)	83	Favorable: 4 No Effect: 4 Unfavorable: 4
Adult well-being: Family functioning	0.38	[0.22, 0.55]	14	3 (13)	641	Favorable: 8 No Effect: 5 Unfavorable: 0

Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention condition and a negative number favors the comparison condition. A range of comparison conditions, including no intervention, minimal intervention, placebo or attention, treatment as usual, and head-to-head comparison conditions are eligible for review (see Section 4.1.7 of the Handbook Version 2.0). Different types of comparison conditions may affect the magnitude of the effect sizes across studies. For example, an intervention compared to a no treatment comparison condition may produce a larger effect size than the same intervention compared to another intervention because the other intervention may itself be effective. The effect sizes shown may be derived from samples that overlap across studies. See the Individual Study Findings table for information about the specific comparison conditions used in each study and the Studies Reviewed section for information about any overlapping samples. The effect sizes presented here are provided for informational purposes only and are not used in determining a program or service rating. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.

Outcome	Effect Size	Implied Percentile Effect	Months after treatment when outcome measured	Number of Participants
Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning
Study 10643 - MDFT vs. Adolescent Group Therapy (Liddle, 2001)
Acting Out Behaviors Scale	0.28	11	0	103
Study 10643 - MDFT vs. Multifamily Educational Intervention (Liddle, 2001)
Acting Out Behaviors Scale	0.21	8	0	99
Acting Out Behaviors Scale	0.39	15	6	89
Acting Out Behaviors Scale	0.36	14	12	87
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Adolescent Group Therapy (Liddle, 2004)
Youth Self Report: Externalizing Problems (6 Weeks Post-Intake)	0.47 *	18	0	83
Youth Self Report: Externalizing Problems (End of Treatment)	0.72 *	26	0	83
Youth Self Report: Internalizing Problems (6 Weeks Post-Intake)	0.44 *	17	0	83
Youth Self Report: Internalizing Problems (End of Treatment)	0.49 *	18	0	83
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Adolescent Group Therapy (Liddle, 2009)
Global Appraisal of Individual Needs: Internalized Distress	0.86 *	30	2	83
Global Appraisal of Individual Needs: Internalized Distress	0.49 *	18	8	83
Conduct Grade (Academic Period 1)	0.49	18	0	43
Conduct Grade (Academic Period 2)	0.20	8	0	43
Conduct Grade (Academic Period 3)	0.75 *	27	3	41
Conduct Grade (Academic Period 4)	0.62	23	5	39
Study 10649 - MDFT vs. Individual Psychotherapy (All Sites) (Schaub, 2014)
Youth Self Report: Internalizing	0.08	3	0	346
Youth Self Report: Internalizing	0.08	3	6	382
Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing	0.21	8	0	341
Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing	0.04	1	0	341
Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing	0.03	1	6	363
Child well-being: Social functioning
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Adolescent Group Therapy (Liddle, 2009)
National Youth Survey: Peer Delinquency Scale (6 Weeks Post-Intake)	-0.09	-3	0	83
National Youth Survey: Peer Delinquency Scale (End of Treatment)	0.82 *	29	0	83
National Youth Survey: Peer Delinquency Scale	0.70 *	25	2	83
National Youth Survey: Peer Delinquency Scale	0.48 *	18	8	83
Child well-being: Substance use
Study 10637 - MDFT vs. Motivational Enhancement Therapy plus Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (Dennis, 2004)
Global Appraisal of Individual Needs: Substance Frequency Scale	-0.15 *	-6	1	193
Global Appraisal of Individual Needs: Substance Frequency Scale	0.00	0	4	190
Global Appraisal of Individual Needs: Substance Frequency Scale	0.07	2	7	181
Global Appraisal of Individual Needs: Substance Frequency Scale	-0.08	-3	10	183
Global Appraisal of Individual Needs: Substance Problem Scale	-0.34 *	-13	1	193
Global Appraisal of Individual Needs: Substance Problem Scale	0.06	2	4	190
Global Appraisal of Individual Needs: Substance Problem Scale	0.16 *	6	7	181
Global Appraisal of Individual Needs: Substance Problem Scale	0.17 *	6	10	183
Study 10637 - MDFT vs. Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (Dennis, 2004)
Global Appraisal of Individual Needs: Substance Frequency Scale	-0.08	-3	1	195
Global Appraisal of Individual Needs: Substance Frequency Scale	0.23	9	4	194
Global Appraisal of Individual Needs: Substance Problem Scale	-0.50	-19	1	195
Study 10643 - MDFT vs. Adolescent Group Therapy (Liddle, 2001)
Adolescent Drug Use Scale	1.14 *	37	0	103
Study 10643 - MDFT vs. Multifamily Educational Intervention (Liddle, 2001)
Adolescent Drug Use Scale	0.66 *	24	0	100
Adolescent Drug Use Scale	0.44 *	17	6	91
Adolescent Drug Use Scale	0.82 *	29	12	89
Study 10645 - MDFT vs. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (Liddle, 2008)
Personal Experiences Inventory: Chemical Involvement Problem Severity Scales	0.22	8	0	103
Personal Experiences Inventory: Chemical Involvement Problem Severity Scales	0.08	3	6	106
Personal Experiences Inventory: Chemical Involvement Problem Severity Scales	0.43 *	16	12	118
Timeline Follow-Back: Days of Cannabis Use in Past 30 Days	-0.11	-4	6	120
Timeline Follow-Back: Days of Cannabis Use in Past 30 Days	0.03	1	12	135
Timeline Follow-Back: Days of Alcohol Use in Past 30 Days	-0.31	-12	6	120
Timeline Follow-Back: Days of Alcohol Use in Past 30 Days	-0.25	-9	12	135
Timeline Follow-Back: Days of Other Drug Use in Past 30 Days	0.64 *	23	12	135
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Adolescent Group Therapy (Liddle, 2009)
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: Substance Use Problems (6 Weeks Post-Intake)	0.50 *	19	0	83
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: Substance Use Problems (End of Treatment)	0.46 *	17	0	83
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: Substance Use Problems	0.65 *	24	2	83
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: Substance Use Problems	0.59 *	22	8	83
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: Percent with Any Substance Use Problems (6 Weeks Post-Intake)	0.93 *	32	0	83
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: Percent with Any Substance Use Problems (End of Treatment)	0.45 *	17	0	83
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: Percent with Any Substance Use Problems	0.87 *	30	2	83
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: Percent with Any Substance Use Problems	0.52 *	19	8	83
Timeline Follow-Back Method: 30 Day Substance Use Frequency (6 Weeks Post-Intake)	0.15	5	0	83
Timeline Follow-Back Method: 30 Day Substance Use Frequency (End of Treatment)	0.43	16	0	83
Timeline Follow-Back Method: 30 Day Substance Use Frequency	0.27	10	2	83
Timeline Follow-Back Method: 30 Day Substance Use Frequency	0.47 *	17	8	83
Timeline Follow-Back Method: Percent with Any Substance Use (6 Weeks Post-Intake)	0.28	11	0	83
Timeline Follow-Back Method: Percent with Any Substance Use (End of Treatment)	0.61 *	22	0	83
Timeline Follow-Back Method: Percent with Any Substance Use	0.55 *	20	2	83
Timeline Follow-Back Method: Percent with Any Substance Use	0.55 *	20	8	83
Child well-being: Delinquent behavior
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Adolescent Group Therapy (Liddle, 2009)
National Youth Survey: Self-Report Delinquency Scale (6 Weeks Post-Intake)	0.34	13	0	83
National Youth Survey: Self-Report Delinquency Scale (End of Treatment)	0.44	17	0	83
National Youth Survey: Self-Report Delinquency Scale	0.19	7	2	83
National Youth Survey: Self-Report Delinquency Scale	0.24	9	8	83
National Youth Survey: Percent with any Delinquency (6 Weeks Post-Intake)	0.82 *	29	0	83
National Youth Survey: Percent with any Delinquency (End of Treatment)	0.55 *	20	0	83
National Youth Survey: Percent with any Delinquency	-0.01	0	2	83
National Youth Survey: Percent with any Delinquency	0.23	9	8	83
Study 10649 - MDFT vs. Individual Psychotherapy (Geneva and The Hague Sites) (van der Pol, 2018a)
Self-Report Delinquency: Proportion of Youth Abstaining from Delinquency	0.17	6	0	86
Self-Report Delinquency: Proportion of Youth Abstaining from Delinquency	0.36 *	14	6	121
Self-Report Delinquency: Proportion of Youth Abstaining from Property Crimes	-0.34	-13	0	73
Self-Report Delinquency: Proportion of Youth Abstaining from Property Crimes	-0.17	-6	6	113
Self-Report Delinquency: Proportion of Youth Abstaining from Violent Crimes	0.46 *	17	6	107
Self-Report Delinquency: Number of Criminal Offenses	0.19	7	6	114
Self-Report Delinquency: Number of Property Crimes	-0.17	-6	0	77
Self-Report Delinquency: Number of Property Crimes	0.33	13	6	113
Self-Report Delinquency: Number of Violent Crimes	0.55 *	21	6	107
Study 10649 - MDFT vs. Individual Psychotherapy (The Hague Site) (van der Pol, 2018b)
Total Number of Police Arrest Offenses	-0.14	-5	6	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Offenses	0.12	4	18	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Offenses	-0.20	-7	30	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Violent Offenses	-0.48 *	-18	6	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Violent Offenses	-0.30	-11	18	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Violent Offenses	-0.67 *	-24	30	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Property Offenses	0.20	7	6	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Property Offenses	1.49 *	43	30	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Property Offenses	0.38	14	18	109
Time to First Registered Offense	Null	not calculated	54	109
Severity of Offenses	Null	not calculated	30	109
Study 10649 - MDFT vs. Individual Psychotherapy (The Hague Site) (van der Pol, 2021)
Total Number of Police Arrest Offenses	Null	not calculated	78	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Offenses	Null	not calculated	66	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Offenses	Null	not calculated	54	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Offenses	Null	not calculated	42	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Violent Offenses	Null	not calculated	42	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Violent Offenses	Null	not calculated	54	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Violent Offenses	Null	not calculated	78	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Violent Offenses	Null	not calculated	66	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Property Offenses	Null	not calculated	78	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Property Offenses	Null	not calculated	66	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Property Offenses	Null	not calculated	54	109
Total Number of Police Arrest Property Offenses	Null	not calculated	42	109
Severity of Offenses	Null	not calculated	78	109
Child well-being: Educational achievement and attainment
Study 10643 - MDFT vs. Adolescent Group Therapy (Liddle, 2001)
Grade Point Average	0.52 *	19	0	101
Grade Point Average	0.19	7	12	87
Study 10643 - MDFT vs. Multifamily Educational Intervention (Liddle, 2001)
Grade Point Average	0.65 *	24	0	96
Grade Point Average	0.41	16	12	85
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Adolescent Group Therapy (Liddle, 2009)
Academic Grade (Academic Period 1)	0.52	20	0	42
Academic Grade (Academic Period 2)	0.22	8	0	42
Academic Grade (Academic Period 3)	0.77 *	27	3	39
Academic Grade (Academic Period 4)	0.73 *	26	5	38
Absences (Academic Period 4)	0.30	11	5	38
Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Adolescent Group Therapy (Liddle, 2009)
Adolescent Daily Interview: Positive Family Interactions (6 Weeks Post-Intake)	-0.34	-13	0	83
Adolescent Daily Interview: Positive Family Interactions (End of Treatment)	-0.47 *	-17	0	83
Adolescent Daily Interview: Positive Family Interactions	-0.13	-5	2	83
Adolescent Daily Interview: Positive Family Interactions	0.09	3	8	83
Adolescent Daily Interview: Negative Family Interactions (6 Weeks Post-Intake)	-0.02	0	0	83
Adolescent Daily Interview: Negative Family Interactions (End of Treatment)	-0.57 *	-21	0	83
Adolescent Daily Interview: Negative Family Interactions	-0.52 *	-19	2	83
Adolescent Daily Interview: Negative Family Interactions	-0.54 *	-20	8	83
Adolescent Daily Interview: Parental Monitoring (6 Weeks Post-Intake)	0.57 *	21	0	83
Adolescent Daily Interview: Parental Monitoring (End of Treatment)	0.85 *	30	0	83
Adolescent Daily Interview: Relationship Quality (6 Weeks Post-Intake)	0.52 *	19	0	83
Adolescent Daily Interview: Relationship Quality (End of Treatment)	0.47 *	18	0	83
Adult well-being: Family functioning
Study 10643 - MDFT vs. Adolescent Group Therapy (Liddle, 2001)
Beavers Family Competence: Global Health Pathology Scale	0.85 *	30	0	103
Beavers Family Competence: Global Health Pathology Scale	1.34 *	41	6	91
Beavers Family Competence: Global Health Pathology Scale	0.68 *	25	12	89
Study 10643 - MDFT vs. Multifamily Educational Intervention (Liddle, 2001)
Beavers Family Competence: Global Health Pathology Scale	0.91 *	31	0	98
Beavers Family Competence: Global Health Pathology Scale	1.53 *	43	6	89
Beavers Family Competence: Global Health Pathology Scale	1.19 *	38	12	87
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Adolescent Group Therapy (Liddle, 2004)
Family Environment Scale: Cohesion (6 Weeks Post-Intake)	0.38	14	0	83
Family Environment Scale: Cohesion (End of Treatment)	0.61 *	22	0	83
Study 10649 - MDFT vs. Individual Psychotherapy (All Sites) (Schaub, 2014)
Family Environment Scale: Conflict	-0.10	-3	0	345
Family Environment Scale: Conflict	0.00	0	3	308
Family Environment Scale: Conflict	0.29 *	11	6	357
Family Environment Scale: Cohesion	0.00	0	6	357
Family Environment Scale: Cohesion	-0.04	-1	0	345

*p <.05

Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention condition and a negative number favors the comparison condition. Effect sizes and implied percentile effects were calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse as described in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 2.0, Sections 6.4 and 6.5 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 study authors in response to author queries to assign study ratings and calculate effect sizes (see Section 8.4.2 in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 2.0). The Prevention Services Clearinghouse typically relies on study-reported p-values to form the basis of the assessment of statistical significance for a finding, but will perform its own statistical test of a finding using any available information in study documents or author queries, as needed (see Section 6.3 in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 2.0). 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.

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	Demographic Characteristics	Populations of Interest*	Household Socioeconomic Status
Study 10643 - MDFT vs. Adolescent Group Therapy
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
--	--	Average age: 15.9 years; age range: 13-18 years 51% White, non-Hispanic 18% African American 15% Hispanic 10% Other 6% Asian 80% Male	61% On juvenile probation	$25,000 Median yearly family income
Study 10643 - MDFT vs. Multifamily Educational Intervention
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
--	--	Average age: 15.9 years; age range: 13-18 years 51% White, non-Hispanic 18% African American 15% Hispanic 10% Other 6% Asian 80% Male	61% On juvenile probation	$25,000 Median yearly family income
Study 10649 - MDFT vs. Individual Psychotherapy (All Sites)
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland	2006	Average age: 16 years; age range: 13-18 years 61% Native Western European 85% Boys	100% Diagnosed with a cannabis use disorder (dependence or abuse); 84% Diagnosed with cannabis dependence; 34% Arrested in past three months	--
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Adolescent Group Therapy
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Miami, FL, USA	--	Average age: 13.7 years 42% Hispanic 38% African American 11% Haitian or Jamaican 4% Other 3% White, non-Hispanic 74% Male 26% Female	47% Involved in the juvenile justice system; 47% Met criteria for substance abuse, 16% Met criteria for substance dependence; 39% Met criteria for conduct disorder, 29% Met criteria for ADHD, 9% Met criteria for a depressive disorder	$19,000 Yearly median family income
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Miami, FL, USA	--	--	53% Single parents	--
Study 10645 - MDFT vs. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Miami, FL, USA	2008	Average Age: 15.4 years; Age range: 12-17.5 years 72% African American 18% White 10% Hispanic 81% Male 19% Female	61% On probation; 75% Diagnosis of cannabis dependence, 20% Diagnosis of alcohol dependence, 13% Diagnosis of other substance abuse, 13% Diagnosis of cannabis abuse, 4% Diagnosis of alcohol abuse, 2% Diagnosis of other substance abuse	--
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Miami, FL, USA	2008	--	58% Single parent	$13,000 Median family income
Study 10637 - MDFT vs. Motivational Enhancement Therapy plus Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Illinois, Missouri and Philadelphia, PA, USA	1998	Age range: 13-18; 12% 13-14 years, 53% 15-16 years, 36% 17-18 years 49% African American/Black 47% Caucasian/White 3% Other/Mixed 2% Hispanic/Latino 18% Female	100% Met the criteria for cannabis related disorder; 83% Lifetime history of juvenile justice system involvement; 70% Current criminal justice system involvement ; 7% Ever homeless/runaway	37% Employed in the past 90 days
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Illinois, Missouri and Philadelphia, PA, USA	1998	--	53% Single parent family	--
Study 10637 - MDFT vs. Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Illinois, Missouri and Philadelphia, PA, USA	1998	Age range: 13-18; 14% 13-14 years, 52% 15-16 years, 35% 17-18 years 50% Caucasian/White 46% African American/Black 4% Other/Mixed 1% Hispanic/Latino 18% Female	100% Met the criteria for cannabis related disorder; 80% Lifetime history of juvenile justice system involvement; 65% Current criminal justice system involvement; 5% Ever homeless/runaway	38% Employed in the past 90 days
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Illinois, Missouri and Philadelphia, PA, USA	1998	--	56% Single parent family	--
Study 10649 - MDFT vs. Individual Psychotherapy (Geneva and The Hague Sites)
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Geneva, Switzerland and The Hague, the Netherlands	2006	Average age: 16 years; age range: 13-18 years 84% Male	77% Cannabis dependence diagnosis; 48% Had committed a property crime, 33% Had committed a violent crime	--
Study 10649 - MDFT vs. Individual Psychotherapy (The Hague Site)
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
The Hague, the Netherlands	2006	Average age: 16.8 years; age range: 13-18 years 72% Dutch/Western 80% Male	100% Diagnosed with cannabis abuse or dependence, 29% Diagnosed with conduct disorder in past year, 17% Diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder in past year; 66.1% Had a prior arrest, 39.8% Ever in prison	--

“--” 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.

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 10643

Liddle, H. A., Dakof, G. A., Parker, K., Diamond, G. S., Barrett, K., & Tejeda, M. (2001). Multidimensional Family Therapy for adolescent drug abuse: Results of a randomized clinical trial. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 27(4), 651-688. https://doi.org/10.1081/ADA-100107661

Schmidt, S., Liddle, H., & Dakof, G. (1996). Changes in parenting practices and adolescent drug abuse during Multidimensional Family Therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 10(1), 12-27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.10.1.12

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 7.2.2)
Study 10649

Rigter, H., Pelc, I., Tossmann, P., Phan, O., Grichting, E., Hendriks, V., & Rowe, C. (2010). INCANT: A transnational randomized trial of Multidimensional Family Therapy versus treatment as usual for adolescents with cannabis use disorder. BMC Psychiatry, 10, Article 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-10-28

Rigter, H., Henderson, C. E., Pelc, I., Tossmann, P., Phan, O., Hendriks, V., Schaub, M., & Rowe, C. L. (2013). Multidimensional Family Therapy lowers the rate of cannabis dependence in adolescents: A randomised controlled trial in Western European outpatient settings. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 130(1-3), 85-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.10.013

Schaub, M. P., Henderson, C. E., Pelc, I., Tossmann, P., Phan, O., Hendriks, V., Rowe, C., & Rigter, H. (2014). Multidimensional Family Therapy decreases the rate of externalising behavioural disorder symptoms in cannabis abusing adolescents: Outcomes of the INCANT trial. BMC Psychiatry, 14, Article 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-14-26

Phan, O., Henderson, C. E., Angelidis, T., Weil, P., van Toorn, M., Rigter, R., Soria, C., & Rigter, H. (2011). European youth care sites serve different populations of adolescents with cannabis use disorder Baseline and referral data from the INCANT trial. BMC Psychiatry, 11, Article 110. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-11-110

van der Pol, T. M., Henderson, C. E., Hendriks, V., Schaub, M. P., & Rigter, H. (2018a). Multidimensional Family Therapy reduces self-reported criminality among adolescents with a cannabis use disorder. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(6), 1573-1588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16687536

van der Pol, T. M., Hendriks, V., Rigter, H., Cohn, M. D., Doreleijers, T. A. H., van Domburgh, L., & Vermeiren, R. R. J. M. (2018b). Multidimensional Family Therapy in adolescents with a cannabis use disorder: Long-term effects on delinquency in a randomized controlled trial. Child And Adolescent Psychiatry And Mental Health, 12, Article 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-018-0248-x

Lascaux, M., Ionescu, S., & Phan, O. (2016). Effectiveness of formalised therapy for adolescents with cannabis dependence: A randomised trial. Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy, 23(5), 404-409. https://doi.org/10.3109/09687637.2016.1153603

Rowe, C., Rigter, H., Henderson, C., Gantner, A., Mos, K., Nielsen, P., & Phan, O. (2013). Implementation fidelity of Multidimensional Family Therapy in an international trial. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 44, 391-399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2012.08.225

Hendriks, V., van der Schee, E., & Blanken, P. (2011). Treatment of adolescents with a cannabis use disorder: Main findings of a randomized controlled trial comparing Multidimensional Family Therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy in The Netherlands. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 119(1-2), 64-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.05.021

Hendriks, V., van der Schee, E., & Blanken, P. (2012). Matching adolescents with a cannabis use disorder to Multidimensional Family Therapy or cognitive behavioral therapy: Treatment effect moderators in a randomized controlled trial. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 125(1-2), 119-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.03.023

Goorden, M., van der Schee, E., Hendriks, V. M., & Hakkaart-van Roijen, L. (2016). Cost-effectiveness of multidimensional family therapy compared to cognitive behavioral therapy for adolescents with a cannabis use disorder: Data from a randomized controlled trial. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 162, 154-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.03.004

van der Pol, T. M., Cohn, M. D., van Domburg, L., Rigter, H., & Vermeiren, R. R. J. M. (2021). Assessing the effect of Multidimensional Family Therapy in adolescents on police arrests against a background of falling crime rates: A randomised controlled trial with 7-year follow-up. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 17, 597-609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09431-0

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 7.2.2)
In addition to full sample analyses, this study also reported analyses that included the following subgroups:
Study 10637

Dennis, M., Godley, S. H., Diamond, G., Tims, F. M., Babor, T., Donaldson, J., Liddle, H., Titus, J. C., Kaminer, Y., Webb, C., Hamiliton, N., & Funk, R. (2004). The Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) Study: Main findings from two randomized trials. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 27(3), 197-213. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2003.09.005

Dennis, M., Titus, J. C., Diamond, G., Donaldson, J., Godley, S. H., Tims, F. M., Webb, C., Kaminer, Y., Babor, T., Roebuck, M. C., Godley, M. D., Hamilton, N., Liddle, H., & Scott, C. K. (2002). The Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) experiment: Rationale, study design and analysis plans. Addiction, 97(Suppl 1), 16-34. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.97.s01.2.x

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 7.2.2)
In addition to full sample analyses, this study also reported analyses that included the following subgroups:
Study 10644

Liddle, H. A., Rowe, C. L., Dakof, G. A., Ungaro, R. A., & Henderson, C. E. (2004). Early intervention for adolescent substance abuse: Pretreatment to posttreatment outcomes of a randomized clinical trial comparing Multidimensional Family Therapy and peer group treatment. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 36(1), 49-63. doi:10.1080/02791072.2004.10399723

Liddle, H. A., Rowe, C. L., Dakof, G. A., Henderson, C. E., & Greenbaum, P. E. (2009). Multidimensional Family Therapy for young adolescent substance abuse: Twelve-month outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(1), 12-25. doi:10.1037/a0014160

Henderson, C. E., Rowe, C. L., Dakof, G. A., Hawes, S. W., & Liddle, H. A. (2009). Parenting practices as mediators of treatment effects in an early-intervention trial of Multidimensional Family Therapy. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 35(4), 220-226. doi:10.1080/00952990903005890

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 7.2.2)

Studies Rated Moderate

Study 10645

Liddle, H. A., Dakof, G. A., Turner, R. M., Henderson, C. E., & Greenbaum, P. E. (2008). Treating adolescent drug abuse: A randomized trial comparing Multidimensional Family Therapy and cognitive behavior therapy. Addiction, 103(10), 1660-1670. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02274.x

Henderson, C. E., Dakof, G. A., Greenbaum, P. E., & Liddle, H. A. (2010). Effectiveness of Multidimensional Family Therapy with higher severity substance-abusing adolescents: Report from two randomized controlled trials. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(6), 885-897. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020620

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 7.2.2)

Studies Rated Low

Study 10647

Liddle, H. A., Dakof, G. A., Rowe, C. L., Henderson, C., Greenbaum, P., Wang, W., & Alberga, L. (2018). Multidimensional Family Therapy as a community-based alternative to residential treatment for adolescents with substance use and co-occurring mental health disorders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 90, 47-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2018.04.011

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 10636

Dakof, G. A., Henderson, C. E., Rowe, C. L., Boustani, M., Greenbaum, P. E., Wang, W., Hawes, S., Linares, C., & Liddle, H. A. (2015). A randomized clinical trial of family therapy in juvenile drug court. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(2), 232-241. doi:10.1037/fam0000053

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

Studies Not Eligible for Review

Study 15703

Dakof, G., Ricardo, M., Rowe, C., Henderson, C., Rigter, H., & Liddle, H. A. (2022). Sustainment rates and factors for Multidimensional Family Therapy in Europe and North America. Global Implementation Research and Applications, 2, 132-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43477-022-00043-6

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.5)

Study 15704

Liddle, H. A., Dakof, G. A., Rowe, C. L. Mohamed, A. B., Henderson, C., Foulkrod, T., Lucas, M. & DiFrancesco, M. (2023). Multidimensional family therapy for justice involved young adults with substance use disorders. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 51(2), 250-263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-023-09852-5.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)

Study 15705

Greenbaum, P. E., Wang, W., Henderson, C. E., Hin, C. E., Kan, L., Hall, K., & Liddle, H. A. (2015). Gender and ethnicity as moderators of integrative data analysis of Multidimensional Family Therapy randomized clinical trials. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(6), 919-930. doi:10.1037/fam0000127

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.5)

Study 15706

Liddle, H. A., Rowe, C. L., Gonzalez, A., Henderson, C. E., Dakof, G. A., & Greenbaum, P.E. (2006). Changing provider practices, program environment and improving outcomes by transporting Multidimensional Family Therapy to an adolescent drug treatment setting. The American Journal of Addictions, 15, 102-112. doi: 10.1080/10550490601003698

Liddle, H. A., Rowe, C. L., Quille, T. L., Dakof, G. A., Mills, D. S., Sakran, E., & Biaggi, H. (2002). Transporting a research-based adolescent drug treatment into practice. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 22(4), 231-43.

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.5)

Study 15707

Henderson, C. E., Dakof, G. A., Greenbaum, P. E., & Liddle, H. A. (2010). Effectiveness of Multidimensional Family Therapy with higher-severity substance abusing adolescents: Report from two randomized controlled trials. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 885-897.

Liddle, H. A., Dakof, G. A., Henderson, C. E., & Rowe, C. L. (2011). Implementation outcomes of multidimensional family therapy-detention to community (DTC) - A reintegration program for drug-using juvenile detainees. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 587-604. doi: 10.1177/0306624X10366960

Rowe, C. L., Alberga, L., Dakof, G. A., Henderson, C. E., Ungaro, R., & Liddle, H. A. (2016). Family-based HIV and sexually transmitted infection risk reduction for drug-involved young offenders: 42-month outcomes. Family Process, 55(2), 305-320. doi: 10.1111/famp.12206

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)

Study 15708

Hogue, A., Bobek, M., Dauber, S., Henderson, C. E., McLeod, B. D., & Southam-Gerow, M. A. (2019). Core elements of family therapy for adolescent behavior problems: Empirical distillation of three manualized treatments. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 48(1), 29-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2018.1555762

Hogue, A., Liddle, H. A., Becker, D., & Johnson-Leckrone, J. (2002). Family-based prevention counseling for high-risk young adolescents: Immediate outcomes. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 1-22.

Hogue, A., Liddle, H.A., Singer, A., & Leckrone, J. (2005). Intervention fidelity in family-based prevention counseling for adolescent problem behaviors. Journal of Community Psychology, 33(2), 191-211.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)

Study 15709

Nielsen P., Rigter, H., Weber N., Favez, N., & Liddle, H. A. (2023). In-session gaming as a tool in treating adolescent problematic gaming. Family Process. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12846

Nielsen, P., Christensen, M., Henderson, C., Liddle, H. A., Croquette-Krokar, M., Favez, N., & Rigter, H. (2021). Multidimensional Family Therapy reduces problematic gaming in adolescents: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 10(2), 234-243. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2021.00022

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)

Study 15711

Blankestein, A. M. M. M., Van der Rijken, R. E. A., Broekhoven, J. L., Lange, A. M. C., Simons, I., Van Domburgh, L., Van Santvoort, F., & Scholte, R. H. J. (2022). Residential youth care combined with systemic interventions: Exploring relationships between family-centered care and outcomes. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 39(1), 34-56. 10.1080/0886571X.2020.1863894

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 2.0, Section 4.1.9)