0.8 0.7 s0.6 e r o sc0.5 e l a sc0.4 N nA0.3 a e M0.2 0.1 0 8 7 sre 6 o c lse 5 a c s 4 H A an 3 e M 2 1 0 TE 1 (D) Baseline Post TE 1 (D) Baseline Post Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 7 14 12 sre 10 o c s lea 8 c s PA 6 n a eM 4 2 0 10 9 8 s re 7 o c lse 6 sca 5 IN 4 n a e 3 M 2 1 0 TE 1 (D) Baseline Post 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 4: Attention problems—mean baseline and post-inter- vention/control scores by classroom. Figure 6: Anxiety problems—mean baseline and post-inter- vention/control scores by classroom. TE 2 (CN) TE 3 (D) Classroom TE 4 (CN) TE 2 (CN) TE 3 (D) Classroom TE 4 (CN) Figure 5: Inattention (subscale of attention problems)—mean baseline and post-intervention/control scores by classroom. Figure 7: Attention deﬁcit/hyperactivity problems—mean baseline and post-intervention/control scores by classroom. Oppositional Deﬁant Problems (OD). For OD diﬀerence scores, results of the ANOVA indicated a signiﬁcant diﬀer- ence among groups (F(3,97) = 3.36, P < .03; η2p = 0.09). Post- hoc tests showed that drumming teacher TE3 rated students as improving more on OD scores than control teacher TE4 (Figure 9). Aﬀective Problems, Somatic Problems, Conduct Problems, Hyperactivity-Impulsivity Subscale of Attention Deﬁcit/Hyper- activity Problems. Diﬀerence scores for these DSM-oriented scales were not signiﬁcant between groups. 3.4. TRF Other Scales. Baseline, post-intervention/control, and diﬀerence scores for TRF other scales that were statis- tically signiﬁcant are displayed in Table 5. Post-Traumatic Stress Problems (PT). For PT diﬀer- ence scores, results of the ANOVA showed a signiﬁcant diﬀerence among groups (F(3,97) = 6.40, P < .01; η2p = 0.17). Post-hoc tests indicated that drumming teachers TE1 and TE3 rated students as improving more on PT scores compared to control teacher TE2 (Figure 10). In addition, control teacher TE4 rated students as improving more on PT scores compared to the other control teacher TE2. Sluggish Cognitive Tempo (ST). For ST diﬀerence scores, one outlier was identiﬁed (in control class 2). Exclusion of this outlier normalized the distribution. The ANOVA on ST diﬀerence scores showed a signiﬁcant diﬀerence among groups (F(3,96) = 9.29, P < .001; η2p = 0.23). Post-hoc tests indicated that drumming teacher TE1 rated students as more improved on ST scores compared to the two control teachers (TE2 and TE4), as well as the other drumming teacher TE3 (Figure 11). Also, drumming teacher TE3 rated students as