Violence prevention in middle schools: a pilot evaluation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of a violence prevention curriculum and of trained peer leaders on self-reported aggressive behaviors, knowledge about violence and conflict-resolution skills, self-efficacy, and attitudes among 223 6th graders. METHODS: The effect of two intervention groups (violence prevention curriculum taught by the teacher with or without the assistance of trained peer leaders) and one control group were compared. Ten 6th grade classes (four control and six intervention classes) of four middle schools participated in the study. Students were evaluated before and shortly after the implementation of the curriculum, as well as 3 months later. RESULTS: The intervention reduced self-reported aggressive behaviors among boys, but this reduction was significant only in two of the six intervention classes. Both interventions had an overall significant effect on increasing knowledge about violence and skills to reduce violence. After the intervention, students also developed a more negative attitude toward responding violently when provoked. Attitude change was stronger among students from the teacher plus peer leader group. No intervention effect was observed on self-efficacy nor on attitudes toward skills to reduce violence. Changes were not maintained over time. CONCLUSIONS: Results emphasize the need for continuous and comprehensive interventions, follow-up evaluations, and careful selection of peer leaders. Aggressive behaviors, not knowledge alone, should be used as the main dependent variable. VioLit summary: OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study by Orpinas et al. was to evaluate the effects of a violence prevention curriculum and trained peer leaders on self-reported aggression, knowledge of violence and conflict resolutions skills, self-efficacy, and attitudes about aggression among children. METHODOLOGY: The authors employed a quasi-experimental design in this study. The study drew upon six intervention groups and four control groups. Each of these groups was a sixth grade class in Texas schools. Nonrandom criteria were used to select the participating schools (i.e. the principals' willingness to participate). Moreover, specific classes were identified by their teachers effectiveness and willingness to participate. However, each class was randomly assigned to either the control group or the intervention group. Some of the intervention groups were assigned peer leaders and others were not. The total number of students in these classrooms was 223. The largest proportion of students was Hispanic, followed respectively by African-Americans and finally Anglos. Most students were 11-12 years of age and half were eligible for free or reduced price lunches. The violence prevention curriculum involved fifteen 50 minute lessons. The first dealt with violence as a societal problem. The second set of lessons deal with empathy training. The third with anger control and interpersonal problem solving and the fourth applied the above skills to specific real-life situations. Teachers received some training as did peer leaders. The designated duty of peer leaders was to modify social norms about violence and reinforce nonviolent responses. Three interviews were conducted with students: one baseline pretest (one week before coursework), one posttest (one week after coursework), and one three month follow-up. Aggression was measured by a scale asking about teasing, pushing, name calling, hitting, encouraging fights, kicking, threatening to hurt or hit, and getting angry. Cronbach's alpha was estimated at .87. Violence prevention knowledge and skill was measured by thirteen multiple-choice and four open-ended questions about interpersonal violence, empathy, point of view, impulsiveness, anger cues, anger control, conflict resolution, alternatives to violence, and resistance to peer pressure. Attitudes toward violence, alternatives to violence, and self-efficacy for alternatives to violence were measured by responses to five stories. After each story opposite adjectives or sentences with a five point scale differentiating them were presented. Examples of these opposites included 'good-bad,' 'fair-unfair,' 'foolish-smart,' 'I know how to do-I do not know how to do,' and 'If I wanted, it would be hard to do-If I wanted, it would be easy to do.' Cronbach's alpha ranged from .64-.78. The authors hypothesized, albeit implicitly, that subjects exposed to the violence prevention curriculum would show significantly less aggression and significantly more violence knowledge and conflict resolution skills, as well as self efficacy. The authors also implicitly hypothesized that intervention groups with peer leaders would show similar, albeit more pronounced, effects. FINDINGS/DISCUSSION: First, the authors examined baseline information on the sample subjects. They found no significant differences among the groups with regard to violence related variables. Results showed that boys were significantly more aggressive and more likely to have carried a weapon in the prior month. There were not significant differences among gender with regard to alcohol use or injuries. However, girls were significantly more knowledgeable and skilled with regard to violence prevention. Boys and girls had more negative attitudes about aggression when unprovoked and more positive attitudes about aggression when provoked. They also had more positive attitudes about alternatives to violence. Next, the authors examined the effects of the program. Results indicated that boys in intervention groups showed a reduction in aggressive behavior when compared to boys in control groups. However, this relationship was only marginally significant in two classes. Girls in intervention group also showed a reduction in aggressive behaviors compared to girls in the control group. However, girls from two intervention classes showed an increase in aggression. Neither difference was statistically significant. Overall, when comparing results from all three interviews, the authors found no significant intervention effects. Nevertheless, there was some overall reduction in aggressive behavior in intervention subjects -- aggression in control groups actually increased somewhat. The data from the follow-up survey found that aggression had significantly increased -- suggesting a time effect on aggression. The authors then turned their attention to violence prevention knowledge and skills. They found that knowledge and skills increased among intervention subjects, albeit not significantly. Analysis of follow-up data revealed an increase in knowledge and skills in intervention subjects and a decrease in control subjects. The authors also found no significant intervention or time effects for attitudes and self-efficacy. However, they did find a significant decrease in negative attitudes about aggression when provoked. Overall, examination of the follow-up data showed an increase in positive attitudes toward aggression when provoked. No significant differences were found regarding the use of peer leaders. However, the authors claimed that weak research design accounted for this. AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS: The authors made several recommendations for future program designers and evaluative researchers. First, they suggested that more thought be given to the logistics of such programs. Teachers in the programs complained that the class periods were too short for the lessons, the lessons were too advanced, and students had too much difficulty with self-disclosure. The authors also commented on the importance of the teachers in such programs. Future programs needed to consider the enthusiasm of the individuals who would implement the curriculum as well as design continuous monitoring procedures. Second, the authors suggested that more research needs to be done on the use of peer leaders and the selection of peer leaders. Third, they suggested that evaluative research on such programs use behavior rather than knowledge and attitudes as the dependent variable. They found that attitudes and knowledge had much too weak of an effect on behavior to use them as a proxy for program effectiveness. EVALUATION: Evaluative studies have long been plagued by problems such as weak research designs and a lack of significant findings. While the authors note the weaknesses in their design, it is as good as any can be. They do however suffer from a lack of significant findings, as is seemingly par for the course. However, they do note some significant findings. These findings are important less for their evaluative substance as for the directions they suggest for future work. The authors recognize this and use these findings to make sound and helpful suggestions for future program designers. In this regard, this study makes more of a contribution than many evaluative studies as it points to the light at the end of the tunnel. As such it will be of value for program designers. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado) Junior High School Student Grade 6 Late Childhood Child Violence Violence Prevention Curriculum Prevention Program Prevention Education Education Program Program Effectiveness Program Evaluation Peer Led Program School Based Texas Child Aggression Conflict Resolution Child Attitudes Child Knowledge Child Perceptions Violence Perceptions Aggression Intervention Intervention Program Language: en