Principal Investigator: JoAnne L. Pedro-Carroll
Level of Intervention: Selected
Target Population: Children with separated or divorced parents.
References: Alpert-Gillis, Pedro-Carroll, & Cowen (1989); Pedro-Carroll, Alpert-Gillis, & Cowen (1992); Pedro-Carroll & Cowen (1985).
Theory (Risk & Protective Factors Targeted):
Stressful life events increase the risk of adjustment problems
and research has documented the negative psychological effects
of divorce for some children. Children from divorced families
have been found to have poorer teacher-rated adjustment, skill-development,
and school performance (Guidubaldi, Clemshaw, Perry, & Mcloughlin,
1983). They have also been described as more aggressive compared
to children from intact families and less popular with peers (e.g.
Emery, 1982). These findings emphasize the need for preventive
interventions with this population.
Description of Intervention:
The Children of Divorce Intervention Program (CODIP) is a school-based
preventive intervention. The original program (Pedro-Carroll &
Cowen, 1985) was based on a modified version of the Children’s
Support Group (CSG, Stolberg & Mahler, 1994), the child component
of the Divorce Adjustment Project (DAP; Stolberg & Cullen,
1983). The program consisted of 10 sessions that were co-lead
by group leaders. The program emphasizes support and skill building.
Children are provided with an opportunity to discuss their thoughts
and feelings about their parents’ divorce (3 sessions) and
taught problem solving skills (3 sessions) and anger management
skills (3 sessions) to enhance adaptive coping with their reactions
to the event. A final session was used to conduct an evaluation
with the children regarding their experiences in the group. The
Pedro-Carroll et al. (1986) version of the program was very similar
to the original program but consisted of 11 sessions with one
session added to focus on building children’s self esteem.
Alpert-Gillis, Pedro-Carroll, & Cowen (1989) modified the
CODIP so that it was more appropriate for a younger (2nd and 3rd
graders) urban, low-income, population that was more ethnically
diverse. The format was expanded to 16 sessions, materials were
adapted, and exercises were added that addressed the developmental
and sociocultural realities of the families. The over-arching
goals of the program (foster group support, facilitate discussion
of divorce-related feelings, promote understanding and reduce
misconceptions, teach problem solving skills, enhance positive
self and family perceptions) remained the same as previous version.
Certain issues were addressed in more depth (e.g. reunion fantasies,
relations with non-custodial parents) and more visual-aids were
employed. In one of the most recent versions of the program, Pedro-Carroll,
Alpert-Gillis, and Cowen (1992) took the 16-session version of
CODIP used in Alpert-Gillis et al. (1989) and adapted it for an
older (4th through 6th grade) sample of urban, low-income students.
VERSION 1
Pedro-Carroll & Cowen (1985)
Research Subjects:
The subjects (33 girls, 42 boys) were 4th through 6th grade, white,
middle-class children. They were recruited by sending letters
to all of the students enrolled in 4th through 6th grade in 4
suburban schools. There were 41 children in the intervention and
34 in the delayed intervention control group. Parents of the subjects
had been separated or divorced for an average of 23.6 months (range
1-84 months).
Research Design:
The total subject pool was randomly assigned to condition within
the schools. Groups were matched for sex, grade, length of time
since separation, and 8 pre-adjustment measures.
Outcomes:
The intervention and control groups were not equivalent on the
Acting Out factor of the Classroom Adjustment Scale (CARS; Lorion,
Cowen, & Caldwell, 1975) and the Good Student factor of the
Health Resources Inventory (HRI; Gesten, 1976) at pre-test. Prior
to the intervention, control subjects were significantly more
likely to be described as acting out and a poor student by teachers
than treatment subjects. These group differences were not controlled
in subsequent analyses.
The treatment group improved significantly more than controls on 8 of 10 scales of the CARS and the HRI. Teacher ratings were significant on the Shy-Anxious (p<.001), Learning Problems (p<.05), Adaptive Assertiveness (p<.05), Peer Sociability (p<.001), Follows Rules (p<.01), and Frustration Tolerance (p<.05) scales. Children’s total score on the Stait-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC; Spielberger, 1973) indicated that intervention subjects reported significant reductions in anxiety symptoms compared to controls (p<.02). Parents of intervention subjects described their children as significantly better adjusted on the total score of the Parent Evaluation Form (measure created for this study) compared to parent ratings of control subjects (p<.001).
VERSION 2
Alpert-Gillis, Pedro-Carroll, & Cowen (1989)
Research Subjects:
The intervention subjects (52 program subjects, 52 divorce controls,
& 81 intact comparisons) were 2nd through 3rd grade, urban
children. The sample was 69% Caucasian, 23% African-American,
5% Hispanic, and 3% other. Twenty-three percent of the sample
was at or below poverty level (1989). Girls made up 46.5% of the
sample. Subjects were eligible if their parents were separated
or divorced and they were not currently in treatment. Treatment
subjects were recruited through referrals by school professionals,
and with program announcements. Control and comparison subjects
were recruited by sending letters describing a study about child
development and family life.
Research Design:
Quasi-experimental design, matched comparisons with assessment
at pre and post-intervention. The three groups were proportional
by sex, grade, and racial composition.
Outcomes:
Group differences at pre-test reflected poorer adjustment for
children of divorce on the PEF, the two T-CRS sum scores, and
the 7 T-CRS factor scores compared to children from intact families.
There were no significant differences between the two groups of
children from divorced families.
Intervention children reported significantly more positive feelings about their families and improved coping skills on the Children’s Divorce Adjustment Scale (CDAS; an adaptation of Sterling, 1986) compared to controls (p<.001). Parents of children who participated in CODIP described their children as significantly better adjusted on the total score of the PEF compared to parent ratings of control subjects (p<.001). Teachers described intervention students as significantly more competent than control children (p<.01). Specifically, they rated them as more assertive (p<.01), socially skilled with peers (p<.01), and better able to tolerate frustration (P<.04) on the T-CRS.
VERSION 3
Pedro-Carroll, Alpert-Gillis, & Cowen (1992)
Research Subjects:
The sample consisted of 188 (110 boys, 78 girls) 4th through 6th
grade students from 9 schools (57 intervention, 38 non-program
divorce controls, 93 comparisons from non-divorced families).
The groups were matched by grade and gender. Fifty-six percent
of the sample was Caucasian, 30% African-American, 10% Hispanic,
3.6% Asian, and .4% Native American. The sample represented a
range of socioeconomic levels. Subjects were eligible if their
parents were separated or divorced, not currently in treatment,
and had no severe emotional problems. Treatment subjects were
recruited through referrals by school professionals, and with
program announcements. Control and comparison subjects were recruited
by sending letters describing a study about child development
and family life.
Research Design:
Quasi-experimental design, matched comparisons with assessment
at pre and post-intervention.
Outcomes:
The intervention, control, and comparison groups were compared
at pre-test. On four out of six variables (STAIC, PEF, T-CRS competence
sum, T-CRS problem sum) there were significant group differences.
In each case, the CODIP children (intervention group) had significantly
poorer adjustment than the divorce control group and the intact
comparison group.
At post-test, significant group differences were found that favored the CODIP participants. Children who received the intervention reported significantly more positive feelings (p<.003) about their families and improved coping on the Child Family Adjustment Scale (CFAS, measure created for this study) compared to both the divorce controls and intact comparison children. Similarly, the intervention children reported significantly less anxiety (p<.01) on the STAIC and parents described them as better adjusted (p<.001) compared to children in the other two groups. In addition, intervention children reported significantly more positive divorce-related attitudes (p<.003) on the Children’s Attitudes and Self Perceptions (CASP; Pedro-Carroll & Cowen, 1985) compared to the divorce controls.
Strengths & Limitations:
The Children of Divorce Intervention Program is designed to prevent
potential mental health complications (i.e. anxiety, behavior
problems) in children that may result from parental divorce. The
program focuses solely on the child, and is designed to create
a support network that facilitates discussion of divorce-related
feelings and attitudes and reduces the likelihood that the child
will engage in self-blame for the events taking place. The program
attempts to build the child’s social problem solving and
anger management skills. Out of three studies that evaluated the
program only one utilized a randomized trial (Pedro-Carroll &
Cowen, 1985) and the others relied on a quasi-experimental designs;
the latter design limits the strength of the conclusions that
can be drawn from the results. In addition, there was some variation
across studies in the degree to which the samples were adequately
matched or differences found between groups were managed statistically.
However, the fact that CODIP has been evaluated multiple times
and that the findings are generally consistent across evaluations
is promising. Most of the studies found improvements in children’s
self-reported anxiety, parent-reported adjustment, and teacher-rated
competence. Some evaluations also found teacher ratings of problem
behavior improved for children in the program. One caveat is that
the follow-up period was not extended in any of the evaluations
so it is impossible to determine whether treatment gains were
maintained over the long-term. Bias from respondents was also
likely to have inflated treatment effects because individuals
were aware of status of children.
The authors provided information in each study regarding their attempts to maintain treatment fidelity. Each of the three studies evaluating CODIP included group leader training and on-going supervision. Training took place one month prior to the beginning of the program and group discussions, and supervision occurred weekly during the intervention period (Pedro-Carroll & Cowen, 1985; Pedro-Carroll et al., 1992; Pedro-Carroll et al., 1986).