Canadian Journal of

School Psychology
Volume 22 Number 1
June 2007 32-49

Effects of School-Based © 2007 Sage Publications

10.1177/0829573507301249

Interventions on Secondary http://cjsp.sagepub.com

hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
School Students with High
and Low Risks for Antisocial
Behaviour
Robin Wright
Lindsay John
Anne-Marie Livingstone
Nicole Shepherd
McGill University
Eric Duku
McMaster University

Abstract: This article describes the methodology and program effects of a multicomponent
model of interventions designed to prevent antisocial behaviour in secondary school
students. Interventions included cooperative learning, classroom management, and peer
tutoring, mentoring, and mediation. Data from the Secondary Schools Demonstration
Project (SSDP) implemented in Ontario, Canada, schools were analyzed to assess whether
the interventions had similar and/or differential effects on groups of students with low and
high risks for antisocial behaviour. The study involved a two-group matched comparison
before-and-after design. Data were collected at baseline for all ninth-grade students (aver-
age age 14 years) in the four schools, and from a subsample of the students at follow-up.
The findings showed that the interventions generated similar improvements in the low and
high-risk groups of youth. However, the positive effects were slightly more pronounced in
the low-risk youth. The discussion proposes future directions for research and practice.

Résumé: L’auteur de cet article décrit les effets de la méthodologie et du programme

d’un modèle d’interventions à composantes multiples conçu pour prévenir le trouble des
conduites et le comportement antisocial chez les étudiants de l’école secondaire. Les
interventions comprenaient de l’apprentissage collaboratif, de la gestion de classe, de
l’enseignement par les pairs, du mentorat et de la méditation. Des données du Projet
pilote des écoles secondaires mis en œuvre dans les écoles de l’Ontario ont été
analysées, dans le but d’évaluer si les interventions avaient des effets comparables et/ou
différents sur des groupes d’étudiants à bas et à haut risques de manifester des
comportements antisociaux. L’étude comprenait une comparaison entre deux groupes
appariés avant/après projet. Les données ont été recueillies comme base de référence
pour tous les étudiants de neuvième année (âge moyen de 14 ans) dans les quatre écoles,
et à partir d’un sous-échantillon d’étudiants dont on a assuré le suivi. Les résultats ont

32

Downloaded from cjs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

 Wright et al. / Effects of School-Based Interventions on Antisocial Behaviour 33

démontré que les interventions ont généré des améliorations semblables dans les deux
groupes de jeunes, celui à bas risque comme celui à haut risque. Cependant, les effets
positifs ont été légèrement plus prononcés chez les jeunes à haut risque. La discussion
propose des directions pour les recherches et la pratique à venir.

Keywords: adolescents; antisocial behaviour; multicomponent interventions; secondary

schools

A ntisocial behaviour often develops during early adolescence and can lead to later
problems such as substance use, teenage pregnancy, school dropout, violence,
and other problem behaviours (Hawkins & Herrenkohl, 2003; Ludwig & Pittman,
1999; Schwartz, 1999). Peer relationships between children are strong predictors of
behaviour, whether it is antisocial or prosocial (Dodge, Dishion, & Lansford, 2006;
Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). This process of socialization and learned behaviour in
children and adolescence is highly influenced by their peer group (Farrell, Meyer, &
White, 2001; Fredricks & Eccles, 2005). If the peer relationship is a persistently neg-
ative one it may lead to a psychiatric diagnosis of conduct disorder, one of the most
serious of the emotional and behavioural problems affecting children and adolescents
(Robins & Price, 1991). However, not all children with antisocial behaviour warrant
a diagnosis of conduct disorder. Children and adolescents with antisocial behaviour
exhibit a gradient of recurring and continuous behaviour such as bullying, stealing,
lying, running away, and truancy (Waddell, Lipman, & Offord, 1999). Adolescents
who are labelled “delinquents” or “young offenders” may represent a subgroup with
severe conduct disorder (Waddell et al., 1999). Given the heavy burden of suffering
associated with antisocial behaviour in children, it is vital to conduct research that can
identify effective prevention strategies (Offord, 1998).
Research on preventive interventions for antisocial behaviour has generally focused
on children in elementary grades because of the importance of intervening early to pre-
vent the onset of the disorder. The number of studies on the prevention of antisocial
behaviour in adolescents remains relatively rare. More research on adolescent popula-
tions is needed because of the high likelihood that symptoms of antisocial behaviour in
adolescence reflect the persistence of a problem that may continue into adulthood if left
untreated (Offord & Bennett, 1994; O’Donnell, Hawkins, & Abbott, 1995). Fortunately,
there is growing research evidence that these adult outcomes are not inevitable and that
well-designed interventions can successfully alter the course of antisocial behaviour in

Authors’ Note: This work was supported by funds from the Ontario Ministry of Education and was car-
ried out at the Offord Centre for Child Studies, Department of Psychiatry, McMaster University,
Chedoke-McMaster Hospitals, Hamilton, Ontario. The authors wish to thank the principals, the teachers
of the two boards of education, and the students and their parents for their help in this project. Address
correspondence to Robin Wright, McGill University, School of Social Work, 3506 University Street,
Montreal, Quebec, H3A 2A7; e-mail: robin.wright@mcgill.ca.

Downloaded from cjs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

34 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

children and adolescents (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group [CPPRG],

2002; Reid, Eddy, Fetrow, & Stoolmiller, 1999; Waddell et al., 1999).
One promising location for implementing prevention programs is the school.
Studies have shown that teaching strategies that enhance the climate of the classroom
and school and the opportunities for student engagement can significantly reduce prob-
lems such as delinquency, truancy, and drug use (Good & Brophy, 1986; Mortimore,
1998; Slavin, 1990). One of the few studies to have explored the potential for pre-
vention to affect antisocial behaviour in adolescents is the Secondary Schools
Demonstration Project (SSDP) implemented in Ontario, Canada. The objective of this
study was to test the effectiveness of a multicomponent program of interventions com-
bining classroom-based and peer-oriented strategies in reducing antisocial behaviour
in adolescents in secondary school. In a previous article we reported that results of the
SSDP indicated that although the interventions did not have statistically significant
effects on antisocial behaviour, there were trends that the SSDP had some effects at the
end of the intervention (Wright, Offord, John, & Duku, 2005). In this article we set out
to determine if the SSDP interventions had differing effects on the groups of youth
identified as being either at high or low risk for antisocial behaviour. The assumption
in the current study is that our previous analysis may have overlooked changes in the
high-risk group because the focus of analysis was on all students (Offord, 1998). We
believe that a stronger test of the effectiveness of the interventions is whether they were
able to improve the behaviour of high-risk youth.
The results of previous studies suggest that successful preventive programs gener-
ally lead to larger effect sizes in high-risk groups (Wilson, Lipsey, & Derzon, 2003).
This might be due in part to the greater potential for improvement in the behaviour of
high-risk groups (August, Realmuto, Hektner, & Bloomquist, 2002; Wilson et al.,
2003). For example, studies evaluating the effects of preventive interventions with
aggressive children have found the largest effect sizes with the most aggressive groups
of children (August et al., 2002; Kellam, Ling, Merisca, Brown, & Ialonga, 1998; Reid
et al., 1999). Kellam et al. (1998) also suggested that interventions have a greater
impact on the most aggressive children by modifying the social contingencies (i.e.,
peer rejection or negative responses from teachers) that promote and/or reinforce the
negative behaviour. If results of the current study reveal that effect sizes were higher
among the high-risk youth in the sample, we would be able to draw more firm con-
clusions about the effectiveness of the selected interventions.

Overview of the Study

Theoretical Framework
The interventions designed for the current study were developed according to the
social development model (Hawkins & Weis, 1985). A more detailed description of

Downloaded from cjs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

 Wright et al. / Effects of School-Based Interventions on Antisocial Behaviour 35

the model is described in Wright et al. (2005). The social development model
hypothesizes that a strong bond to school serves as a protective factor against anti-
social behaviour. The elements of that bond include students’ sense of attachment to
their schools and their commitment to the norms and behavioural standards of the
school. A second assertion of the social development model is that the influence of
different socializing units, including the peer group, family, school, and community,
will vary with the age of the child. Interventions that promote bonding to prosocial
peers and inhibit association with antisocial peers are particularly crucial in adoles-
cence (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996).
Empirical support for the social development model has been demonstrated
repeatedly. Longitudinal studies have shown, for example, that among the key cor-
relates of antisocial behaviour are academic problems, low commitment to school,
and association with negative peers (D. C. Gottfredson, 2001; Hawkins et al., 1992).
Evaluations of interventions have also shown that teaching strategies that enhance
students’ bonds to school and to its prosocial norms can improve levels of academic
achievement and reduce the occurrence of problems such as truancy, suspensions,
and expulsions (Abbott et al., 1998; Hawkins, Doueck, & Lishner, 1988).

Interventions and Training Sessions

The interventions were developed to engage all students, rather than an individ-
ual group that may be predisposed to antisocial behaviour. According to Hawkins
and Lam (1987), it is appropriate to seek changes in organizations, such as schools,
to ensure that they provide opportunities, skills, and rewards to youth rather than
seek to directly change the behaviours of targeted high-risk individual youths.
Therefore, when schools provide opportunities, skills, and rewards for positive
behaviour, they encourage social bonding and discourage antisocial behaviour in
students. The three SSDP interventions (cooperative learning, classroom manage-
ment, and peer tutoring, mentoring, and mediation) from the social development
model were aimed at promoting conditions conducive to the development of strong
bonds to school by increasing students’ attachment to adults and prosocial peers,
commitment to school, and academic achievement (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996).
The hypothesis being that an increase in these constructs would result in a reduction
of antisocial behaviour.
Only a brief description of the three components from the social development
model are provided here as a more detailed discussion is provided in Wright et al.
(2005). Cooperative learning is a strategy that engages students in working together
in small groups (Slavin, 1980, 1983; Slavin & Karweit, 1984). Students of mixed
gender, race, abilities, learning needs, and behavioural problems work together to
master the curriculum and receive recognition and rewards as a team for their
group’s academic performance (Hawkins & Lam, 1987). By encouraging students to
work together and to help each other succeed, cooperative learning should reduce

Downloaded from cjs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

36 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

alienation in the classroom and enhance the commitment to educational goals

(Slavin, 1980). The second component classroom management involves teachers’
use of methods to create an environment that is conducive to learning and appropri-
ate student behaviour and minimizes disruptions to classroom activities (Brophy,
1987; Cummings, 1983; Emmer & Evertson, 1980; Good & Brophy, 1986). In the
third component peer tutoring, mentoring, and mediation students at risk for antiso-
cial behaviour are taught by their prosocial peers how to conform to school norms
and to succeed academically (Hawkins & Lam, 1987). The aim of the peer inter-
ventions was to enhance attachment and commitment to school, positive peer inter-
action, and academic achievement for all students but particularly those at risk of
antisocial behaviour (Coie & Krehbiel, 1984; Johnson & Johnson, 1996).
In the intervention schools, all 89 teachers participated in two 2-day workshops
on cooperative learning techniques and proactive classroom management. The work-
shops focused on techniques such as setting clear directions and consistent expecta-
tions to increase students’ opportunities for skill development and to limit discipline
problems. In addition, praise and encouragement were used as a way to increase
students’ attachment to the teacher and the classroom. In the intervention schools, 24
guidance counsellors were also trained in two 2-day sessions that first covered the
area of peer helping and tutoring, followed by a focus on peer meditation.
The training focused on techniques for teaching students about communication
skills and problem-solving skills to prevent negative responses such as fighting and
provided an alternative to traditional interventions by school authorities (e.g., warn-
ings, suspensions). The training in peer tutoring focused on identifying and assisting
youth at risk for academic failure through the development of improved study skills.
Evaluations of the workshops by teachers and guidance counsellors showed an over-
all positive response to the training sessions.

Method

The current study was carried out in two school boards in Ontario, Canada, that
volunteered to participate. The current study employed a two-group comparison
before-and-after design. The unit of allocation was the school: two schools were
assigned the intervention condition, and two schools were used for comparison.
Implementation of the interventions took place during a 3-month period. Programs
were delivered to all Grade 9 students in the intervention schools. Grade 9 was cho-
sen because it is the start of secondary school in the province of Ontario. Principals
from each of the four schools sent a letter to parents and/or guardians of students
outlining the purpose and content of the SSDP. Parents were instructed to contact the
school if they did not wish to have their child (or children) participate.
A 12-page questionnaire, comprising 98 questions, was developed for the cur-
rent study based on scales used in a number of previous studies with reported

Downloaded from cjs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

 Wright et al. / Effects of School-Based Interventions on Antisocial Behaviour 37

psychometric properties. Questions were designed to cover issues such as the

following: level of involvement in school and extracurricular activities (e.g., sports,
clubs, art lessons); student perceptions of school climate and/or culture; relation-
ships with family members, peers, and teachers; alcohol and other drug use (includ-
ing drug use by peers and family members); behavioural and learning difficulties at
school; antisocial behaviour; and possible involvement in deviant activities. Other
questions were designed to measure emotional problems and a number of psy-
chosocial attributes such as self-esteem and self-efficacy. The questionnaire was
administered by homeroom teachers in class.
The analysis is based on 13 outcome measures from the questionnaire. Student
perception of teacher support was measured using a scale comprising 6 items and a
5-point response category (α = .79) with an item-total correlation range from .40 to .68
from the Survey of Children’s Support (Dubow & Ullman, 1989). Student perception
of classroom interactions with peers was measured using a 4-item scale with a 5-point
response category (α = .79) and an item-total correlation range from .40 to .55 devel-
oped by Offord, Boyle, Racine, and Holmes (personal communication, March, 1992).
Scales to measure susceptibility to peer influence were taken from the Susceptibility
to Peer Influence Scale (Dielman, Campanelli, Shope, & Butchart, 1987), and
Addiction Research Foundation (ARF) Opening Doors Screening Questionnaire
(Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1995). The scale comprised 12 items, each
with a response of yes or no. Three subscales emerged from that scale: (a) peer pres-
sure to commit antisocial acts (α = .72), item-total correlation range from .36 to .52;
(b) peer pressure to use alcohol (α = .87), item-total correlation range of .78; (c) peer
pressure to use illegal drugs (α = .88), item-total correlation of .79. Involvement in
antisocial behaviour in the past 12 months on the part of the youth’s close friends was
measured with the ARF Opening Doors Screening Questionnaire (Centre for Addiction
and Mental Health, 1995). It contained 19 items; each item had a 3-point response
category (α = .94), item-total correlation range from .57 to .72.
The source of the scale for school climate is the Effective School Battery: Student
Survey (Gottfredson, 1984). Two subscales emerged from that scale: (a) a 12-item,
5-point response category (α = .85), item-total correlation range from .33 to .66,
measuring student perception of disciplinary policies and equitable treatment and
respect for all students; (b) a 7-item, 5-point response category (α = .76), item-total
correlation range from .36 to .60, measuring students’ sense of belonging. Student
attachment to school was measured using the Student Attitudinal Inventory for
Outcome Evaluation of Adolescent Drug Use Prevention Programs (Kim, 1981) and
ARF Opening Doors Screening Questionnaire (Centre for Addiction and Mental
Health, 1995). The scale had eight items, each with a 5-point response category (α = .88),
and an item-total correlation range from .53 to .73. Truancy, suspension, and class
preparation was measured with a 9-item scale. Two subscales emerged from the
scale: (a) truancy and suspensions had five items, each item having a 6-point
response category. The scale was derived from “Dépistages des adolescents à Risque
de Toxicomanies” (Vitaro, Pelletier, Gagnon, et al., 1995) and ARF Opening Doors

Downloaded from cjs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

38 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

Screening Questionnaire (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1995) (α = .80),
item-total correlation range from .48 to .72; (b) class preparation had four items, and
each item had a 6-point response category (α = .80), item-total correlation range
from .55 to .66. Parental attitudes to education was measured using a scale derived
from “Dépistages des adolescents à Risque de Toxicomanies” (Vitaro, Pelletier,
Gagnon, Janos, & Baillargeon, 1995). It comprised four items, each with a 5-point
response category (α = .74) and item-total correlation range from .47 to .61. Last,
conduct disorder was measured using the conduct disorder scale. It was derived from
DSM-III-R (American Psychiatric Association, 1987) and the Ontario Child Health
Study-3A (Offord, Boyle, & Racine, 1989). The scale comprised 12 items with a 3-
item response category (α = .76), item-total correlation range from .28 to .63.
The scales used for the 13 outcome measures were examined using Cronbach’s
alpha and factor analysis and were found to be psychometrically sound by covary-
ing positively as shown by the internal consistencies and meeting the interitem cor-
relation cutoff set at .40 (Wright et al., 2005). Those scales that did not meet the
above criteria were not included in further analysis.
Questionnaires were provided to 1,024 Grade nine students in the comparison and
intervention schools. Of these, 978 completed questionnaires were returned, indicat-
ing a response rate of 96% to represent baseline (or Time 1) data collection. Time 2
data collection was conducted with a random sample of 400 students, of equal
numbers of males and females, who were selected for follow-up in each of the four
participating schools. Of the total of 400 students selected for follow-up at Time 2,
358 completed the questionnaires, for a response rate of 90%.
The subsample of 400 students selected at Time 2 was broken down into two
groups of youth; specifically, youth at high and low risk for antisocial behaviour.
Research studies have shown that between 20% and 25% of the adolescent popula-
tion can be classified as “high risk.” High risk may be defined as students at risk of
exhibiting a variety of externalizing and internalizing behaviours/traits/characteristics
such as truancy and/or school dropout, low academic achievement, substance use
and/or abuse, emotional disorders, deviance, and violent and other antisocial behav-
iour. The decision to select 200 in each group was also based on statistical consid-
erations. Students in the high-risk group were identified by their answers to the
questionnaire: rates of truancy, low academic achievement, use of alcohol or mari-
juana, conduct disorder and hyperactivity, and emotional disorders. For each crite-
rion variable, a cutoff point corresponding to the top 20% of the cases was imposed.
Individuals were designated as “high risk” if they scored positive (i.e., top 20%) on
three or more of the five criteria. For each school and gender, equal numbers of low-
risk students were then randomly selected from the remaining pool of participants
(e.g., students not conforming to the definition of high risk). This was from the larger
80% and did not necessarily represent the “lowest risk” individuals. The subsample
included a total of 247 low-risk youth, including 146 in the intervention schools and
101 in the comparison schools, and 111 high-risk youth, including 51 in the inter-
vention schools and 60 in the control schools.

Downloaded from cjs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

 Wright et al. / Effects of School-Based Interventions on Antisocial Behaviour 39

Statistical Analyses
The analyses were performed using SPSS version 12.0. To assess similarities
between the intervention and comparison schools at Time 1, an independent samples
t test was used for continuous variables, and a Pearson chi-square test (or Fisher’s
exact test) for categorical variables. Because a repeated measures (before–after)
design was used in the SSDP, repeated measures ANOVAs were used to analyze
within-school changes in the selected outcomes from Time 1 to Time 2.
The analyses of outcome measures collected at Time 1 showed that there were sta-
tistically significant differences between the low- and high-risk youth on all of the 13
outcome measures. Therefore, in the repeated measures ANOVAs we controlled for dif-
ferences in risk level and gender. Although there were equal numbers of males and
females there was still a need to control for gender because of the varying levels of risk
within each gender. The effect sizes were computed for the total sample using the
adjusted means and also for the two subgroups of low- and high-risk students. The
effect sizes were assessed using the well-known thresholds set by Cohen (1988). In
other words, an effect size of less than .20 was considered trivial, an effect size between
.20 and .50 was considered small, an effect size between .50 and .80 was considered
moderate, and an effect size greater than .80 was considered large (Cohen, 1988).

Results

Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics and outcome measures for the
low- and high-risk youth in comparison and intervention schools at Time 1. The analy-
sis of the baseline differences shows that students in the two sets of schools were fairly
similar on all of the outcome measures. The demographic profile of students in com-
parison and intervention schools, whether low or high risk, was also fairly similar.
Some slight differences, however, are also important to note. The data show that high-
risk youth in the intervention schools had slightly higher levels of risk factors than
high-risk youth in comparison schools; for example, the high-risk students in the inter-
vention schools were less likely to be living in two-parent families, more likely to have
moved during the past 2 years, and showed more antisocial behaviour.
Table 2 presents the results of the within-group analyses for the total sample of
youth and for the low- and high-risk groups of youth in intervention and comparison
schools. The within-group analyses reveal the variation in change trends from Time 1
to Time 2 for each group. The data presented allow us to make a comparison between
the outcomes for the general population of students and for the subgroups of low-
and high-risk youth. However, the focus of this article is on analyzing differences and
similarities between the low- and high-risk youth.
The results show that for the low-risk youth, mean changes for 2 of the 13 out-
comes were statistically significant. The statistically significant outcome measures

Downloaded from cjs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

40 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

Table 1
Baseline Characteristics by Group
Low-Risk Youth High-Risk Youth

Comparison Intervention Comparison Intervention

School School School School
(n = 101) (n = 146) (n = 60) (n = 51)
% % % %

Demographic variables
Female 48.5 50.0 48.3 43.1
Two-parent family 83.0 84.9 85.0 70.6
Two or more moves in 20.8 17.2 15.0 33.3
the past 5 years
Graduated high school (mother) 83.0 81.7 76.3 79.6
Graduated high school (father) 76.5 79.6 69.1 78.7
Born in Ontario, Canada 93.7 93.5 95.0 91.8
Parents own home 83.0 89.6 87.9 80.0
Conduct disorder 17.2 20.4 70.0 81.6

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Age at last birthday 14.03 .48 14.07 .57 14.08 .60 14.1 .57
# of siblings 2.0 1.33 1.48 1.92 2.47 1.83 2.41 1.71
Outcome measures
Student perception of teacher 14.6 3.8 14.1 4.0 10.0 4.2 10.0 4.2
Student perception of classroom 24.6 5.5 24.1 5.6 27.4 6.7 28.0 6.3
interaction
Susceptibility to peer influence to
Commit antisocial acts 10.8 1.5 10.7 1.4 8.9 1.7 8.6 1.8
Use alcohol 2.9 .9 2.7 .9 2.2 .5 2.1 .4
Use illegal drugs 3.7 .7 3.5 .8 2.4 .7 2.6 .9
Friends’ deviance in past 12 months 6.6 8.2 8.0 8.7 16.0 9.2 14.7 7.1
Student perception of clarity and 41.5 6.8 40.4 6.6 35.9 7.1 34.5 8.0
fairness of school rules
Student sense of belonging 23.0 4.0 21.7 4.2 18.6 4.3 19.2 4.9
Student attachment to school 14.2 4.8 15.3 4.8 19.1 5.3 19.5 7.3
Truancy, suspensions, and 5.2 1.8 5.4 2.0 9.3 3.4 10.0 4.5
behaviour problems
Preparation for class 9.3 3.8 9.3 4.0 19.9 4.6 14.7 5.7
Parental attitude to education 17.5 2.7 17.5 2.8 16.4 3.5 16.5 3.4
Conduct disorder 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.1 8.2 4.3 8.9 4.9

were student sense of belonging and student attachment to school. The results indicate
that low-risk youth showed an increase in student sense of belonging. In the control
schools, low-risk students demonstrated a downward trend in that outcome. With
respect to students’ attachment to school, low-risk students showed an improvement in

Downloaded from cjs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

 Table 2
Repeat Measures ANOVA of Means for Outcome Measures: Within-Group Changes
in Mean Scores from Time 1 to Time 2
Total Sample Low-Risk Youth High-Risk Youth

Comparison Intervention Comparison Intervention Comparison Intervention

Difference Difference Difference Difference Difference Difference
Outcome Measures (T2-T1) (T2-T1) p value (T2-T1) (T2-T1) p value (T2-T1) (T2-T1) p value

Student perception –1.4 –.32 .01 –1.97 –1.03 .03 –.87 .38 .14
of teacher
Student perception –.11 .59 .33 –.24 1.06 .09 .02 .62 .94
of classroom
interaction
Susceptibility to peer
influence to
Commit –.04 .04 .36 –.08 –.09 .90 .00 .18 .14
antisocial acts
Use alcohol .00 .04 .71 –.09 –.06 .75 .09 .13 .82
Use illegal drugs –.39 –.03 .07 –.48 –.37 .57 –.29 .31 .11
Friends’ deviance 2.30 .42 .12 2.19 1.03 .41 2.41 –.18 .16
in past 12 months
Student perception –1.63 –.71 .27 –2.46 –1.50 .30 –.80 .09 .55
of fairness and clarity
of school rules
Student sense of .13 .24 .12 –.88 .41 .00 .86 .91 .95
belonging
Student attachment 2.47 .89 .01 2.57 .82 .00 2.38 .96 .51

Downloaded from cjs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

to school
Truancy and behaviour 1.12 .19 .01 1.29 .60 .06 .95 –.21 .92
problems
Preparation for class .63 .46 .73 1.23 .62 .21 .03 .30 .79
Parental attitude to –1.19 –1.34 .73 –1.26 –1.21 .10 –1.12 –1.46 .69
education
Conduct disorder 1.37 .42 .07 1.68 .89 .13 .96 –.04 .29

41
42 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

the intervention and comparison schools. Yet the increase in that measure was
noticeably higher in the comparison schools. The high-risk youth were not found to
have any statistically significant results at Time 2.
Several of the remaining outcome measures, although not statistically significant,
showed positive trends in the hypothesized direction for the low- and high-risk
youth. The low-risk youth in intervention schools showed an increase in student
sense of belonging, whereas the low-risk youth in comparison schools showed a
decline in this outcome. The low- and high-risk students in intervention schools
showed improvements from Time 1 to Time 2 in student perception of classroom
interaction relative to students in the comparison schools. The low- and high-risk
youth in intervention schools also showed improvements in friends’ deviance in past
12 months and conduct disorder in contrast with students in the comparison schools.
Table 3 presents the effect sizes for the 13 outcomes for each group. Effect sizes
with a negative sign indicate change that is not in the hypothesized direction. The
effect sizes reveal that the interventions had similar effects on the low- and high-risk
youth with regard to 6 of the 13 outcome measures, namely student perception of
teacher; susceptibility to peer influence to use alcohol; student perception of the clar-
ity and fairness of school rules; student attachment to school, truancy, suspensions,
and behaviour problems; and conduct disorder. The effect sizes for four of these out-
comes were small, except for student susceptibility to peer influence to use alcohol
and student perception of the clarity and fairness of school rules. The effect sizes for
the latter 2 outcomes were trivial. Furthermore, the effect sizes of most measures
were as hypothesized, with the exception of student attachment to school which was
in the opposite direction as hypothesized for the low- and high-risk youth.
The remaining outcome measures showed effect sizes that varied in magnitude and
direction for the low- and high-risk youth. The results showed that student perception
of classroom interaction and student sense of belonging were in the hypothesized
direction, although small, for the low-risk youth, but only trivial for the high-risk
youth. The high-risk youth showed a higher effect size than low-risk youth with
respect to friends’ deviance in past 12 months. Moreover, the high-risk youth
recorded effect sizes that were small but in the opposite direction of the hypothesis
for student susceptibility to commit antisocial acts and student susceptibility to use
illegal drugs. For the low-risk youth, the effect sizes for these 2 outcomes were as
hypothesized although trivial.
The remaining 3 outcome measures had effect sizes that were trivial for the low-
and high-risk youth. The effect size for student susceptibility to use alcohol was triv-
ial and in the hypothesized direction for the low-risk youth, and trivial and in the
opposite direction as hypothesized for the high-risk youth. The effect size for prepa-
ration for class was trivial and in the opposite direction as hypothesized for the low-
risk youth, and trivial and as hypothesized for the high-risk youth. Finally, the
outcome parental attitude to education had a trivial effect size that was as hypothe-
sized for the low-risk youth but not for the high-risk youth.

Downloaded from cjs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

 Wright et al. / Effects of School-Based Interventions on Antisocial Behaviour 43

Table 3
Effect Sizes for Outcome Measures
Total Sample Low-Risk Youth High-Risk Youth

Pooled Effect Pooled Effect Pooled Effect

Outcome Measures Baseline SD Size Baseline SD Size Baseline SD Size

Student perception 4.57 .24 3.95 .24 4.46 .28

of teacher
Student perception of 6.04 .12 5.54 .24 6.51 .09
classroom interaction
Susceptibility to peer
influence to
Commit .86 –.09 .91 –.01 .45 –.39
antisocial acts
Use alcohol .93 –.03 .76 .04 .80 –.04
Use illegal drugs 1.81 –.20 1.43 .08 1.79 –.34
Friends’ deviance in 9.19 .20 8.50 .14 8.25 .31
past 12 months
Student perception of clarity 7.42 .12 6.67 .14 7.50 .12
and fairness of school rules
Student sense of belonging 4.58 .02 4.14 .31 4.60 .01
Student attachment to school 5.70 –.28 4.82 –.36 6.30 –.22
Truancy, suspensions and 3.37 .27 1.92 .36 3.96 .29
behaviour problems
Preparation for class 5.03 –.03 3.94 –.15 5.14 .05
Parental attitude to 3.02 –.05 2.76 .02 3.45 –.10
education
Conduct disorder 4.41 .21 3.06 .26 4.59 .22

Discussion

The findings show that the multicomponent model of interventions implemented in

the current study had generally small and similar effects on the groups of low- and
high-risk youth. The low-risk youth and high-risk youth showed small changes in the
hypothesized direction for student perception of teacher; truancy, suspensions, and
behaviour problems; and conduct disorder. The deterioration in behaviour problems in
the comparison schools may be representative of normal maturation effects for this age
group (Verhulst & Van Der Ende, 1995). Both groups also showed improvements of
varying degrees in student perception of classroom interaction, friends’ deviance in
past 12 months, and student perception of the clarity and fairness of school rules.
Overall, the pattern of change in these variables suggests movement in the hypothe-
sized direction for high- and low-risk groups of youth. A few divergent patterns were

Downloaded from cjs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

44 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

also found. For example, the low-risk youth in intervention schools showed a signifi-
cant improvement in student sense of belonging compared to their peers in the com-
parison schools. The high-risk students, on the other hand, showed a similar
progression in student sense of belonging in the comparison and intervention schools.
In general, improvements in outcome measures were slightly more pronounced for the
low-risk youth.
Although the interventions were universal to all students, the hypothesis of the
current study was that high-risk youth in the intervention group would improve on
the predetermined constructs to decrease the likelihood of antisocial behaviour.
However, although the results provide some evidence to support this hypothesis,
stronger and more statistically significant effects would have had to be found to
regard the interventions as effective. In addition, the finding that low-risk youth
showed higher effect sizes than the high-risk youth runs counter to our original
expectations and to the results of previous research.
A number of factors may account for the limited effects of the interventions. It is
well-accepted today that short-term interventions can only produce short-term
effects at best, and that more long-term and sustained interventions are necessary to
produce enduring changes (Greenberg, Domitrovich, & Bumbarger, 2001). In previ-
ous studies, the effects of a similar model of interventions were shown to be statis-
tically significant only after 1 or 2 years of continuous programs (Abbott et al., 1998;
Hawkins et al., 1988). In addition, the SSDP did not include data on treatment
fidelity. Had we been able to associate the actual implementation of the interventions
with the impact on students we might have found more observable changes. For
example, Abbott et al. (1998), in examining the impact of a very similar combina-
tion of interventions, found statistically significant results only after introducing a
variable to account for differences in teacher implementation of the strategies. In
addition, because the comparison groups were not controlled, there was no guaran-
tee that they were not using interventions with similar strategies as those used in the
intervention schools.
A few of the findings might also be an indication of the complexities involved in
implementing interventions to prevent antisocial behaviour in adolescents. For
example, with respect to student sense of belonging increased in the low-risk
students but changed little in the high-risk youth in intervention schools. The ques-
tion remains whether a more intensive and longer period of intervention would have
produced better results in the high-risk youth. Turning to student attachment to
school, we find that there was a higher increase in the comparison schools with the
low- and high-risk youth. The reasons for this are unclear. One possible explanation
is that participation in the current study motivated principals and teachers in the
comparison schools to introduce changes that enhanced students’ attachment to
school. Again, it would have been interesting to examine if a longer and/or more
intensive period of implementation would have led student attachment to school to

Downloaded from cjs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

 Wright et al. / Effects of School-Based Interventions on Antisocial Behaviour 45

develop as a result of, or in association with, the improvements in student sense of

belonging in the intervention schools. In the current study, the concepts of belong-
ing and attachment were closely related but also distinct: The student sense of
belonging scale in the questionnaire included items that reflected an emotional con-
nection to school, whereas the student attachment to school scale measured students’
perceptions about the importance of school. More still needs to be known about the
mechanisms that facilitate bonding to school for groups of youth with low and high
risks for antisocial behaviour.
The findings also showed that the high-risk youth demonstrated little improvement
and even deterioration in outcomes that dealt with their susceptibility to peer influences.
These results suggest that the interventions were simply not adequate to address the
causal influences of peers on high-risk youth. This could be due in part to two factors:
(a) the proportion of students who were trained in the peer interventions was small rel-
ative to the number of high-risk students who needed this support and (b) students who
were referred to guidance counsellors for peer support were having academic difficul-
ties and, therefore, were not necessarily at risk for antisocial behaviour. In addition, the
efficacy of the peer interventions has been less conclusively demonstrated than the
classroom-based interventions used in the current study (Bennett, Rolheiser-Bennett, &
Stevahn, 1991; G. D. Gottfredson, 1987; Poulin, Dishion, & Burraston, 2001; Slavin,
1990). What is clear from the available evidence is that successful peer interventions
engage high-risk youth in relationships with prosocial peers and adults (Feldman, 1992;
Poulin et al., 2001). Programs that isolate high-risk youth into homogeneous groups
appear to reinforce antisocial behaviour (Dishion & Andrews, 1995). Future research
should look at alternative ways to provide direct support to high-risk youth and to
engage them in prosocial relationships with peers and with caring adults. The premise
of the SSDP was that interventions in the school and peer group are especially impor-
tant during adolescence. However, to enhance the strength of school and peer interven-
tions, consideration might be given to involving the parents of high-risk youth in
constructive and supportive interventions. In this way, students would be given oppor-
tunities to apply and receive rewards for prosocial skills at school and at home (Reid &
Eddy, 1997).
A final limitation of the current study includes a lack of assessment of the fidelity
and integrity of each intervention component. For example, teachers were given
training manuals, role-played different scenarios, and developed lesson plans based
on the new learning. In three of the four schools, process measures were completed
by the youth on the extent to which they had been exposed to the interventions prior
to the beginning of the study. However, no additional measures were used to assess
the implementation effort. Three issues should be addressed with respect to fidelity
in future research: (a) the key components of the intervention approach need to be
clearly defined,(b) the development of intervention protocols would determine if the
teachers implemented the key components as planned, and (c) include other sources
of verification such as external observers and teacher reports.

Downloaded from cjs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

46 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

Although the results of the current study were not significant, the analysis has
shown the value of examining differences in the effects of interventions based on
youths’ level of risk or susceptibility to behavioural and emotional problems. Few
studies have systemically examined the effects of risk factors on the effectiveness
and impact of interventions. Clearly, not all youth will respond in the same way to
the same intervention. Moreover, such an analysis can provide us with a much better
understanding of the ways in which behaviour change is manifested in different
groups of adolescents. As we have seen, the interventions in the current study were
not as influential with the high-risk youth as they were with the low-risk youth.
In conclusion, there is a need for more research that explores universal interven-
tions that can be effective with groups of adolescents and targeted interventions that
can be effective with adolescents at higher risk of antisocial behaviour. The combi-
nation of the two strategies should provide an opportunity to enhance the learning
opportunities and functioning of all youth, as well as to direct more intensive sup-
port to youth for whom the universal intervention is not enough (Offord, 1998).

References
Abbott, R. D., O’Donnell, J., Hawkins, J. D., Hill, K. G., Kosterma, R., & Catalano, R. F. (1998).
Changing teaching practices to promote achievement and bonding to school. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 68(4), 542-552.
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.,
rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
August, G. J., Realmuto, G. M., Hektner, J. M., & Bloomquist, M. L. (2002). An integrated components
prevention intervention for aggressive elementary school children: The Early Risers Program. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 9(4), 614-626.
Bennett, B., Rolheiser-Bennett, C., & Stevahn, L. (1991). Cooperative learning: Where heart meets mind.
Toronto, Canada: Bookation.
Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational
Leadership, 45, 40-48.
Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial behav-
iour. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 149-197). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. (1995). Opening doors: A personal and social skills program.
Toronto, Canada: Author.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Coie, J. D., & Krehbiel, G. (1984). Effects of academic tutoring on the social status of low-achieving,
socially rejected children. Child Development, 55, 1465-1478.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2002). The implementation of the Fast Track program:
An example of a large-scale prevention science efficacy trial. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
30(1), 1-17.
Cummings C. (1983). Managing to teach. Snohomish, WA: Snohomish Publishing.
Dielman, T. E., Campanelli, P. C., Shope, J. T., and Butchart, A. T. (1987). Susceptibility to peer pressure,
self-esteem, and health locus of control as correlates of adolescent substance-abuse. Health Education
Quarterly, 14(2), 207-221.

Downloaded from cjs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

 Wright et al. / Effects of School-Based Interventions on Antisocial Behaviour 47

Dishion, T. J., & Andrews, D. W. (1995). Preventing escalation in problem behaviours in high-risk young
adolescents: Immediate and 1-year outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(4),
538-548.
Dodge, K. A., Dishion, T. J., & Lansford, J. E. (2006). Deviant peer influences in intervention and public
policy for youth. Social Policy Report, 20(1), 1-19.
Dubow, E. F., and Ullman, D. G. (1989). Assessing social support in elementary school children: The sur-
vey of children's social support. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18(1), 52-64.
Emmer, E. T., & Evertson, C. M. (1980). Effective management at the beginning of the school year in
junior high classes. Austin: University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for
Teacher Education.
Farrell, A. D., Meyer, A. L., & White, K. S. (2001). Evaluation of Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways
(RIPP): A school-based prevention program for reducing violence among urban adolescents. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 30(4), 451-463.
Feldman, R. A. (1992). The St. Louis Experiment: Effective treatment of antisocial youths in pro-social
peer groups. In J. McCord & R. E. Tremblay (Eds.), Preventing antisocial behaviour: Interventions
from birth to adolescence (pp. 233-252). New York: Guilford.
Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Developmental benefits of extracurricular involvement: Do peer
characteristics mediate the link between activities and youth outcomes? Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 34(6), 507-520.
Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1986). School effects. In M. Mittlock (Ed.), Handbook on research on teaching
(pp. 570-602). New York: Macmillan.
Gottfredson, G. D. (1984). The Effective School Battery: User’s Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc.
Gottfredson, G. D. (1987). Peer group interventions to reduce the risk of delinquent behaviour: A selec-
tive review and a new evaluation. Criminology, 25, 671-714.
Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). Schools and delinquency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B. (2001). The prevention of mental disorders in
school-aged children: Current state of the field. Prevention and Treatment, 4.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Morrison, D. M., O’Donnell, J. O., Abbott, R. D., & Day, L. E. (1992).
The Seattle Development Project: Effects of the first four years on protective factors and problem
behaviours. In J. McCord & R. E. Tremblay (Eds.), Preventing antisocial behaviour: Interventions
from birth to adolescence (pp. 139-161). New York: Guilford.
Hawkins, J. D., Doueck, H. J., & Lishner, D. M. (1988). Changing teaching practices in mainstream class-
rooms to improve bonding and behaviour of low achievers. American Educational Research Journal,
25(1), 31-50.
Hawkins, J. D., & Herrenkohl, T. I. (2003). Prevention in the school years. In D. P. Farrington & J. W.
Coid (Eds.), Early prevention of adult antisocial behaviour (pp. 265-291). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, J. D., & Lam, T. (1987). Teacher practices, social development, and delinquency. In J. D.
Burchard & S. N. Burchard (Eds.), Prevention of delinquent behaviour: Vermont Conference on the
Primary Prevention Of Psychopathology (pp. 241-274). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hawkins, J. D., & Weis, J. G. (1985). The social development model: An integrated approach to delin-
quency prevention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 6(2), 73-97.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Conflict resolution and peer mediation programs in elementary
and secondary schools: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 459-506.
Kellam, S. G., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Brown, C. H., & Ialonga, N. (1998). The effect of the level of aggres-
sion in the first grade classroom on the course and malleability of aggressive behaviour into middle
school. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 165-185.
Kim, S. (1981). Student attitudinal inventory for outcome evaluation of adolescent drug abuse prevention
programs. Journal of Primary Prevention, 2(2), 91-100.

Downloaded from cjs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

48 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

Ludwig, K. B., & Pittman, J. F. (1999). Adolescent prosocial values and self-efficacy in relation to delin-
quency, risky sexual behavior, and drug use. Youth & Society, 30(4), 461-482.
Mortimore, P. (1998). The road to improvement: Reflections on school effectiveness. Lisse, The
Netherlands, Exton, PA: Swets & Zeitlinger.
O’Donnell, J., Hawkins, J. D., & Abbott, R. D. (1995). Predicting serious delinquency and substance use
among aggressive boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 529-537.
Offord, D. R. (1998). Prevention of antisocial personality disorder. In Proceedings from the 88th Annual
Meeting of the American Psychopathological Association (pp.). New York: American Psychopathological
Association.
Offord, D. R., & Bennett, K. J. (1994). Conduct disorder: Long-term outcomes and intervention effec-
tiveness. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33(8), 1060-1078.
Offord, D. R., Boyle, M. H., and Racine, Y. (1989). Ontario child health study: Correlates of disorder.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 856-860.
Poulin, F., Dishion, T. J., & Burraston, B. (2001). Three-year iatrogenic effects associated with aggregat-
ing high-risk adolescents in cognitive-behavioural preventive interventions. Applied Developmental
Science, 5(4), 214-224.
Reid, J. B., & Eddy, M. J. (1997). The prevention of antisocial behaviour: Some considerations in the
search for effective interventions. In D. Stoff, J. Breiling, & J. Maser (Eds.), Handbook of antisocial
behaviour (pp. 474-495). New York: John Wiley.
Reid, J. B., Eddy, M. J., Fetrow, R. A., & Stoolmiller, M. (1999). Description and immediate impacts of a pre-
ventive intervention for conduct problems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 483-517.
Robins, L. N., & Price, R. K. (1991). Adult disorders predicted by childhood conduct problems: Results
from the NIMH Epidemiologic Catchment Area Project. Psychiatry, 54, 116-132.
Roth, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). What do adolescents need for healthy development? Implications for
youth policy. Social Policy Report, 14(1).
Schwartz, W. (1999). Developing social competence in children. Choices Briefs, 3.
Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50, 315-342.
Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological
Bulletin, 94, 429-445.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Slavin, R. E., & Karweit, N. (1984). Mastery learning and student teams: A factorial experiment in urban
general mathematics classes. American Educational Journal, 21, 725-736.
Verhulst, F. C., & Van Der Ende, J. (1995). The eight-year stability of problem behaviour in an epidemi-
ologic sample. Pediatric Research, 38(4), 612-617.
Vitaro, F., Pelletier, D., Gagnon, C., Janosz, M., and Baillargeon, R. (1995). Depistage des Jeune a risque
de consommation reguliere de tabac ou d’alcool: Rapport de recherche au Conseil quebecois de la
recherche sociale: Groupe de recherche sur L’inadaptation psychociale chez l’enfant, Equipe de
recherche sur la prevention et le traitement des toxicomanies. Faculte des arts et des sciences, Universite
de Montreal.
Waddell, C., Lipman, E., & Offord, D. R. (1999). Conduct disorder: Practice parameters for assessment,
treatment and prevention. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 44, 35S-42S.
Wilson, S. J., Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (2003). The effects of school-based intervention programs on
aggressive behaviour: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 136-149.
Wright, R., Offord, D. R., John, L., & Duku, E. (2005). Secondary Schools Demonstration Project: Program
effects of school-based interventions on antisocial behaviour. Exceptionality Education Canada, 15(2),
27-50.

Robin Wright is an associate professor at McGill University’s School of Social Work, with a major inter-
est in prevention of children’s emotional and behavioural problems. She is co-principal investigator of the
National Arts and Youth Demonstration Project and the Tampa Arts and Youth Demonstration Project,

Downloaded from cjs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

 Wright et al. / Effects of School-Based Interventions on Antisocial Behaviour 49

exploring community-based arts programs as a strategy for enhancing the well-being of children and
youth in lower income communities. She is also co-principal investigator of the Edmonton Arts & Youth
Feasibility Study and the Toronto Arts & Youth Feasibility Study, assessing whether it is possible to
engage youth in conflict with the law in a community-based arts program and is principal investigator of
the Barriers to Participation for Visible Minority and Aboriginal Youth. She also has extensive experience
in the implementation and evaluation of intervention research projects in community settings, and in the
application of quantitative and qualitative methods of research.

Lindsay John is co-principal investigator of the National Arts and Youth Demonstration Project and the
Tampa Arts and Youth Demonstration Project, exploring community-based arts programs as a strategy for
enhancing the well-being of children and youth in lower income communities. He is also co-principal
investigator of the Edmonton Arts & Youth Feasibility Study and the Toronto Arts & Youth Feasibility
Study, assessing whether it is possible to engage youth in conflict with the law in a community-based arts
program. His major research interest is in primary prevention of children’s emotional and behavioural
problems. His other research interest includes instrument development for outcome research, children uti-
lization of mental health services, quality of life research, and program evaluation. He was an assistant
professor at McGill University during the writing of this article and is recently retired.

Anne-Marie Livingstone, MA, was a research assistant on the project. She is currently Research and
Evaluation Coordinator for a government initiative in Quebec to support the development of community
schools in English-speaking communities of the province. She has close to 20 years of experience in
research and evaluation and in the conduct of community-based programs.

Nicole Shepherd is a PhD candidate at the School of Social Work at McGill University. Her research
interests include suicide bereavement, mental health, community-based programs for youth, and intellec-
tual disabilities.

Eric Duku, MSc, PStat, has been with the Offord Centre for Child Studies as a Senior Statistical Analyst
since 1997. In addition to working with Dr. Magdalena Janus’ School Readiness to Learn team, he also
works with Dr. Peter Szatmari’s Autism research team at the Offord Centre. Eric is a member of the
Statistical Society of Canada. His research interests lie in the area of children’s mental health and vio-
lence prevention, and the application of measurement techniques in this area of research.

Downloaded from cjs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016