Table 2: Mean (standard deviation) TRF broad-band scale scores by classroom. TE1 (n = 24) D 7.6 (7.9) 3.6 (3.2) 4.0 (7.9) 2.3 (3.1) 1.3 (1.4) 1.0 (3.2) TE2 (n = 22) CN 15.5 (11.3) 17.4 (11.1) –1.9 (7.4) 3.4 (2.5) 4.3 (2.8) –0.9 (3.1) TE3 (n = 30) D 10.7 (9.0) 7.4 (7.9) 3.3 (6.2) 4.3 (4.8) 2.3 (2.2) 2.0 (3.5) TE: teacher; D: drumming; CN: control; TRF: Teacher’s Report Form; Diﬀerence: diﬀerence score (post-intervention/control minus baseline); TO: total problems; IP: internalizing problems. A positive value for diﬀerence scores indicates improvement whereas a negative value indicates worsening of symptoms. 5 TE4 (n = 25) CN 18.0 (14.6) 20.4 (14.0) –2.4 (7.6) 4.4 (4.1) 4.1 (3.4) 0.3 (2.6) Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine Condition TRF scale Baseline TO Post-TO Diﬀerence TO Baseline IP Post-IP Diﬀerence IP 6 5 s reo 4 c s e l sca 3 P I ean 2 M 1 0 TE 1 (D) Baseline Post 4 3.5 se 3 r o sc 2.5 e l a sc 2 D nW1.5 a e M 1 0.5 0 TE 1 (D) Baseline Post TE 2 (CN) TE 3 (D) Classroom TE 4 (CN) TE 2 (CN) TE 3 (D) Classroom TE 4 (CN) Figure 2: Internalizing problems—mean baseline and post- intervention/control scores by classroom. Figure 3: Withdrawn/depression—mean baseline and post- intervention/control scores by classroom. Aggressive Behavior). Diﬀerence scores for externalizing problems were not signiﬁcant between groups. 3.2. TRF Narrow-Band Syndrome Scales. Baseline, post- intervention/control and diﬀerence scores for TRF narrow- band syndrome scales that were statistically signiﬁcant are displayed in Table 3. Withdrawn/Depressed (WD). For WD diﬀerence scores, two outliers were identiﬁed (both in drumming class 1). Exclusion of these outliers normalized the distribution. The ANOVA on WD diﬀerence scores showed a signiﬁcant diﬀer- ence among groups (F(3,95) = 3.75, P < .02; η2p = 0.11). Post- hoc tests indicated that the two drumming teachers (TE1 and TE3) rated students as improving more on WD scores post- intervention compared to control teacher TE2 (Figure 3). Attention Problems (AP). For AP diﬀerence scores, results of the ANOVA indicated a signiﬁcant diﬀerence among groups (F(3,97) = 5.69, P < .01; η2p = 0.15). Post hoc tests showed that drumming teacher TE1 rated students as improving more on AP scores post-intervention relative to the two control teachers (TE2 and TE4) (Figure 4). In addi- tion, drumming teacher TE3 rated students as improving more on AP scores compared to control teacher TE4. Inattention (IN—one of two subscales for Attention Problems; the other being Hyperactivity-Impulsivity). IN diﬀerence scores showed a signiﬁcant diﬀerence among groups (F(3,97) = 7.16, P < .001; η2p = 0.18). Results of post- hoc tests indicated that the two drumming teachers (TE1 and TE3) rated students as improving more on IN scores post- intervention compared to the two control teachers (TE2 and TE4) (Figure 5). Anxious/Depressed, Somatic Complaints, Social Problems, Thought Problems, Rule-Breaking Behavior, Aggressive Behav- ior, Hyperactivity-Impulsivity Subscale of Attention Problems. Diﬀerence scores for these syndrome scales were not signiﬁ- cant between groups. 3.3. TRF DSM-Oriented Scales. Baseline, post-intervention/ control, and diﬀerence scores for TRF DSM-oriented scales that were statistically signiﬁcant are displayed in Table 4.