University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining the effectiveness of the Why Try Program for children receiving residentially based services and attending a non-public school

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining the effectiveness of the Why Try Program for children receiving residentially based services and attending a non-public school

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

EXAMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE WHY TRY PROGRAM FOR
CHILDREN RECEIVING RESIDENTIALLY BASED SERVICES AND
ATTENDING A NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL

by

David Baker

________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2008

Copyright 2008 David Baker

ii
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my wife and children, Michelle,
Madison, and Trevor. Michelle, your continued support, encouragement and
understanding during this process was extraordinary, and without it I would never
have been able to complete the process. Madison and Trevor, I hope that you will
grow to have the same level of appreciation, passion, and desire for education as I
do, and that you will always challenge yourselves to achieve, grow, and learn.

iii
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my tremendous gratitude to Dr. Dennis Hocevar for
guiding me through this process and continually reassuring me about my writing
abilities, my statistical analysis ability, and most of all making sure that I would
finish. In addition I would like to acknowledge the other members of my committee,
Dr. Hentschke and Dr. Zimmer for their insightful feedback and advise. I would also
like to acknowledge the USC LA weekend cohort who got me started in the right
direction and the Sacramento cohort who helped me finish up.

iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vii
Abstract viii
Chapter One: Problem Identification 1
Chapter Two: Literature Review 19
Chapter Three: Method 37
Chapter Four: Findings 45
Chapter Five: Summary, Discussion and Recommendations 63
References 75

v
List of Tables
Table 1. T-Test 45
Table 2. Estimated Marginal Means 46
Table 3. Test of Between-Subjects Effects 46
Table 4. Paired Sample Statistics 47
Table 5. Paired Sample Tests 47
Table 6. Pre/Post Change: Anxious/Depressed 49
Table 7. Pre/Post Change: Withdrawn/Depressed 50
Table 8. Pre/Post Change: Social Problems 51
Table 9. Pre/Post Change: Thought Problems 51
Table 10. Pre/Post Change: Attention Problems 52
Table 11. Pre/Post Change: Rule Breaking Behavior 52
Table 12. Pre/Post Change: Aggressive Behavior 53
Table 13. Pre/Post Change: Internalizing Problems 53
Table 14. Pre/Post Change: Externalizing Problems 54
Table 15. Pre/Post Change: Total Problems 55
Table 16. Univariate Analysis of Variance: Anxious/Depressed 56
Table 17. Univariate Analysis of Variance: Withdrawn/Depressed 56
Table 18. Univariate Analysis of Variance: Social Problems 57
Table 19. Univariate Analysis of Variance: Thought Problems 57
Table 20. Univariate Analysis of Variance: Attention Problems 58
Table 21. Univariate Analysis of Variance: Rule Breaking Behavior 58

vi
Table 22. Univariate Analysis of Variance: Aggressive Behavior 59
Table 23. Univariate Analysis of Variance: Internalizing Problems 60
Table 24. Univariate Analysis of Variance: Externalizing Problems 60
Table 25. Univariate Analysis of Variance: Total Problems 61

vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Foster Care Placements 2
Figure 2. Race/Ethnicity of foster care children 3

viii
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of the Why Try Program
with children living in group homes, or Licensed Children’s Institutions (LCI),
receiving residentially based services who are also attending a Non-Public School
(NPS). This study was a quasi-experimental study using a pre-post independent
group design with a nonequivalent control group. A 16 week series of Why Try
Program groups was administered to the experimental group, and pre/post test
results of the experimental and control groups were compared.
Participants consisted of approximately 42 students in the experimental group
and 36 from the control group. Experimental and control groups consisted of
students from two similar NPS campuses who were also receiving residentially based
services at similar LCI’s. All students were assessed using through pre/post test of
the General Self-Efficacy (GSE) assessment and all three of the Achenbach System
of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA). Assessments included evaluation
forms completed by the primary care givers, teachers and the youth themselves.
Findings indicate that the experimental group showed significant increases in
their perceived self-efficacy scores for pre to post test. Positive growth was also
found in several of the syndrome scales measured by the ASEBA forms. The most
profound was that of the youth self report which indicated significant growth in eight
of ten of the measured syndrome scales. Results, as a whole indicated the Why Try
Program to be an effective intervention tool for the youth involved in the study.

1
Chapter One
Problem Identification
Over the past 40 years considerable attention has been paid to raising student
achievement. Attempts at addressing achievement began with the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965. A primary goal of the ESEA was to
increase the achievement of traditionally low-achieving students (Wirt & Kirst,
2005). Most recently, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) which reauthorized the
ESEA was enacted in 2001. President Bush campaigned on a promise to reform the
educational system and eliminate racial and educational inequalities (Cross, 2004).
While the rhetoric of NCLB spoke of equality for all children, there is a population
of children in this country that receive very little attention, but in fact, may be the
most vulnerable of all: Children in foster care are often a forgotten group. It is
estimated that 513,000 children are in foster care in the US (US Department of
Health And Human Services, 2006). These children are placed in a variety of settings
ranging from foster homes to institutions. The breakdown of living situations for
foster care youth are detailed in figure 1 below:

2
Figure 1: Foster Care Placements

Foster care youth have traditionally struggled in school, with nearly half of
them receiving special education services (Parish et al., 2001). In addition these
children tend to have lower scores on standardized tests, increased rates of retention,
and higher absenteeism, truancy, and dropout rates (Christian, 2003). Christian
(2003) describes the plight of these foster children in the following way:
First, most of the 500,000 children in foster care bear the scars of physical
and emotional trauma, such as prenatal exposure to alcohol, tobacco and
other drugs; parental abuse, neglect and abandonment; exposure to violence
and their homes and communities; separation from their birth families; and
frequent changes in foster placement. These experiences place children at
immense risk of developing physical, emotional, and behavioral disorders
that interfere with learning. (p. 1, 2003)

Compounding the problem is the fact that there has consistently been an over
representation of African American and Hispanic children in the foster care system

3
in comparison to the general population (Zeltin & Weinberg, 2004). The figure
below represents the racial breakdown of children in foster care:

Figure 2: Race/Ethnicity of foster care children

Estimates of the number of children in foster care in California exceed
18,000, of that number only 46% will graduate from high school. Many will end up
arrested or on some form of public assistance (Parish et al., 2001). Estimates
indicate that as many as 52% of foster children receive special education services for
some type of learning disability or emotional disturbance. This number is especially
alarming when compared to the fact that only 10% of children in the general
population receive special education services (Weinberg et al., 2001).
In California close to half of foster care children are receiving their special
education services in Non-Public Schools (NPS). NPS generally serve the most

4
difficult special education students with the highest levels of emotional disturbances.
These students often demonstrate behavioral disorders that impair their ability to
function in most public schools. In addition these students are often missing credits
and are functioning below grade level in multiple subjects. The reasons for these
deficits range from a variety of learning disorders to high levels of absenteeism. The
California Educational Code requires that children be treated in the least restrictive
environment possible and that a placement in a non-public school can only be made
when explicitly called for, and if the child’s Individual Education Plan (IEP)
indicates the need for the student to receive specialized services that cannot be met in
a conventional public school setting. These services generally include an increased
level of educational and behavioral support services.
The focus of this study will be children living in group homes, or Licensed
Children’s Institutions (LCI), receiving residentially based services who are also
attending a NPS. Recently, there has been a focus on NPS and how well they are
doing with these at risk children. As noted above, generally the results for these
children have been distressing. Specifically this study will focus on the children in a
Residential Classification Level (RCL) 14 LCI and who attend a NPS. Specifics of
the RCL classifications are defined below.
In California LCI are licensed by the Department of Social Services rated on
a RCL scale from 1 to 14. LCI’s with a rating of 14 are the highest level of care in
California. Unlike foster children placed in lower RCL, foster children placed in a
RCL 14 facility, have been certified as seriously disturbed as defined in the Welfare

5
and Institutions Code, Section 5600.3 and subject to Section 1502.4 of the Health
and Safety code, by their local Mental Health Department. These children require
higher levels of supervision, structure, and a variety of mental health services. They
often have a history of multiple failed placements, have changed schools many
times, and are often below grade level and missing credits.
Mountain Valley School (MVS) is a NPS designed to address the needs of
children with a variety of mental illnesses who require highly specialized services.
MVS is associated with Valley Treatment Centers (VTC) which is a RCL 14 LCI for
severely emotional disturbed children. Many of the children and youth residing in a
VTC therapeutic residential facility attend MVS. Attendance at MVS is absolutely
not a requirement to be placed in a VTC therapeutic residential facility, however, due
to the high level of services that these children require; it is common for the local
school districts to place these children at MVS. In addition to students who live in a
VTC therapeutic residential facility, students may also live in another LCI, foster
home, at home with family, or other living situation. The decision for the student to
attend MVS is directed by the students IEP, and ultimately the student’s unique
needs. MVS is made up of four campuses throughout the state, serving over 400
students, the majority of whom live in RCL 14 facilities.
Problem Analysis
The problem being addressed for the purpose of this study is related to
positive outcomes for the children attending MVS and living in a VTC therapeutic
residential facility. In most cases these children are foster care children, however

6
many of them may also be on probation or placed through California Assembly Bill
(AB) 26.5 via an Individual Education Plan (IEP) by their home school district.
Currently these students as a whole have failed to demonstrate the ability to function
in a manner that allows them to return to a less restrictive setting. The root cause of
these problems is directly related to factors such as mental illness, serious emotional
disturbances, physical abuse, sexual abuse, learning disabilities, and childhood
trauma. These issues manifest themselves in the form of classroom disruptions,
assaultive behaviors, runaway behaviors, self-injurious behaviors, and a variety of
other actions that interfere with the children’s ability to function at school as well as
in other areas. To address these concerns the students involved in this study all
participate in an intensive day treatment program designed to improve their ability to
be functional as well as provide the necessary behavioral supports the children need
in order to be successful each day.
The primary issue at hand is performance. The children in this study are
essentially suffering from a lack of achievement in many areas. These gaps, be they
educational, social-emotional, or skill related have a negative effect on the children
and their opportunities for success. The demonstration of perceived failure in
multiple areas leads to increased numbers of failed placements, educational deficits,
lack of permanency and ultimately poor outcomes such as those outlined above.
Clark and Estes (2002) have identified three major causes for performance gaps in
organizations. The framework that they have outlined can be useful in examining
causes of poor performance in organizations as well as groups and individuals. The

7
areas identified by Clark and Estes (2002) as potential performance gap areas are:
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational. The first two represent a
suitable framework for analyzing the performance gaps for many of the children
living in LCI and attending NPS.
Knowledge and Skills
When evaluating causes for gaps in performance Clark and Estes (2002)
suggest implementing knowledge based skill development programs to address gaps
in the areas of knowledge and skill. This approach has proven to be successful for
children living in LCI’s as well. Skill building programs have had positive results
for children in care in both LCI’s and school settings (McNeal et al., 2006). Skill
acquisition is a principal contributor to the hope and success of youth, and youth who
fail to learn the appropriate skills have difficulty setting and achieving goals. As
previously stated many foster care children who age out of the system specifically
point to the lack of educational and life skills as a primary contributor to their
inability to function successfully outside of the foster care system (Barth, 1990).
Barth’s (1990) examination of self-reports from former foster care youth pointed out
that “almost one third (29%) indicated that lack of education/skills was the greatest
barrier to obtaining the kind of work they wanted” (Barth, 1990). A milieu
consisting of a structured social skills development component has shown to have
positive effects in a variety of areas including; thought, social, attention, and
delinquent problems (Larzelere, 2004). Larzelere’s (2004) study also indicated a

8
reduction in overall behavioral problems when the child was involved in a program
with a strong social-skills training component.
Motivation
A common thread with all the children involved in this study is related
directly to their level of motivation and self-efficacy. The majority of students
included in this study have a long history of failed placements and poor school
performance. In many cases it is not uncommon for children with these experiences
to view school as a negative experience and therefore, have predetermined that they
would be better off not trying because they feel they may fail. Covington (2000)
describes this process as self-worth protection. Essentially the child invokes a
strategy of withholding effort on a task in order to protect their self worth, creating a
built in defense mechanism of blaming the lack of effort for the failure rather then
ability. These motivational and self-efficacy issues have a profound effect on the
lives of many children identified with learning disabilities and or emotional
disturbances.
Self-Efficacy
Self efficacy is defined as “People’s judgments of their capabilities to
organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of
performances” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Low levels of self-efficacy often lead
people to choose not to attempt activities in which they feel they might not succeed;
likewise higher levels of self-efficacy encourage people to take action and attempt
new and difficult tasks (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Self-efficacy beliefs affect the

9
choices that people make and influence their motivation, self regulation, and effort
(Pajares, 1995). At MVS students often feel as though they are not capable of being
successful in school so they fail to even attempt many tasks or assignments. This
choice is often manifested in acting out behaviors such as yelling, disrupting class,
goofing off, withdrawing, walking out of class, and even endangering themselves or
others. Increasing their level of self-efficacy should then increase their willingness
to assert effort in school and other areas of their lives.
Problem Solution
Lower levels of motivation and self-efficacy are huge barriers to the success
of foster care youth and special education students who already have a variety of
barriers in their way. In order to address these concerns the students at MVS who
also live in a VTC therapeutic residential facility were involved in an intensive 16
week series of groups designed to help improve their motivation, increase their self-
efficacy, and produce measurable reductions in problem behaviors. The purpose of
the groups was to increase the student’s skills at setting goals and achieving these
goals. The program that was embarked upon was the Why Try Program which is
designed to teach youth a variety of ways to deal with life’s challenges, including
goal setting and problem solving skills. The Program is designed to use a multi-
sensory approach to teaching students through pictures, hands-on activities, and
music. This is especially helpful for children with learning disabilities who may
have strengths in a variety of different mediums. The theory behind the Why Try
Program is based primarily on solution focused brief therapy, emotional intelligence

10
theory, and multiple intelligence theory. Early studies indicate that the use of the
Why Try program has positive outcomes in the areas of student truancy, behavior, as
well as academics (Moore, 2001). In this study, students at the Northern California
MVS campus who live in a VTC therapeutic residential facility participated in series
of workshops that will teach them the Why Try principles and allow them
opportunities to practice the skills they are learning.
The Why Try Program was designed by Christian Moore who is a Licensed
Clinical Social Worker. The Why Try Program is designed to address the needs of
youth who struggle with the process of making their way through many of the day-
to-day challenges that they face.
The goal of the Why Try Program is to help youth answer the question ‘Why
try in life?’ when they are frustrated, confused, or angry with life’s pressures
and challenges. The Why Try Program teaches youth that trying hard in life
and putting effort into challenges at home, at school, and with peers is worth
the effort” (Moore, 2001, p. iii).

The program is centered on a series of 10 visual analogies intended to help
the youth answer questions about goal setting and decision making. In addition to
the visual analogies and their accompanying questions, physical activities, and music
designed to help the youth see that they can have more opportunity, freedom, and
self-respect (Moore, 2001). A summary of the 10 analogies is included below to
give the reader a better understanding of the program.
1. The Channeling Anger and Challenges into Positive Motivation analogy is of
a river winding its self through a mix of dams. The goal is to teach the youth
about how to turn challenges in to positive opportunities. The “flood zone”

11
gives a visual representation of how poor decisions and negative behaviors
can be destructive and counterproductive to achieving goals (Moore, 2001).
2. The Reality Ride analogy shows the youth’s life as a roller coaster with a
variety of challenges encountered on the journey. The analogy is designed as
a goal setting and problem setting process in which the youth set goals and
work through solving them. This analogy is the basis for the next eight, as
they can all be referenced back to the idea of staying on track to achieving the
goal of more freedom, opportunity and self respect (Moore, 2001).
3. The Tearing off Labels analogy teaches youth the importance of shedding
negative labels and focusing on their strengths (Moore, 2001). This approach
can be especially promising for foster care youth who have experienced a
variety of labels, including mental health diagnosis, special education and
learning disability labels.
4. The Defense Mechanisms analogy teaches youth positive coping mechanisms
to deal with challenges when they are angry, frustrated or scared (Moore,
2001).
5. The Climbing Out analogy teaches youth the effects of peer pressure, both
positive and negative. The goal is to develop the youth’s ability to avoid peer
pressures that often get in the way of them achieving their goals. The
analogy shows a crab pot with “peer” crabs trying to prevent another crab
from successfully climbing out to freedom (Moore, 2001).

12
6. The Jumping Hurdles analogy uses a tennis shoe and a series of hurdles to
demonstrate a problem solving framework that includes identifying a
problem, creating options, getting assistance, and taking action. Key to this
analogy is the idea that when the youth fails to solve a problem, they can
make adjustments and keep on tying (Moore, 2001).
7. The Desire, Time, and Effort analogy is a maze that demonstrates the
importance of committing the proper amount of time and effort to achieving a
goal. The maze shows them how the application of desire, time and effort to a
goal can produce a positive result (Moore, 2001).
8. The Lift the Weight analogy makes a connection between weight training and
self discipline. The analogy teaches how self-discipline and adhering to
fundamental rules will make a person stronger, and prepare youth for future
challenges (Moore, 2001).
9. The Getting Plugged in analogy teaches youth to make connection to support
systems that will be positive resources for them in future (Moore, 2001).
Having a solid support system in place prior to exiting the foster care system
has been shown to be one of the primary factors in the success of youth who
have exited the system (Barth, 1990).
10. The Seeing Over the Wall analogy is the culminating analogy that shows the
youth how implementing the approaches of the other nine analogies can help
them find their way over the “wall” and create more freedom, opportunity
and self respect (Moore, 2001).

13
Central to the Why Try Program is the idea of the adult building a strong
relationship with the youth and working as a collaborative process with the youth,
rather then a simple lecture or series of directions. In addition the entire program is
designed to help youth learn from an interactive approach which allows youth with
different learning skills and abilities. The variety of learning approaches involved in
the program is a primary reason for the selection of the Why Try Program as an
intervention.
Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) is a solution focused treatment that
helps students focus on the solution to their problems, not the problem itself. Studies
have shown that SFBT can have positive effects in helping people construct
solutions to their problems (Gingerich & Eisengart, 2000). Recent studies have
even indicated the use of SFBT with people with learning disabilities (Smith, 2005).
Unlike many of the treatments that the youth in foster care have experienced, SFBT
does not dwell on past failures; instead the focus is on solutions, strengths and
moving forward.
The Why Try Program also has a focus on improving the Emotional
Intelligence of the youth involved. Emotional Intelligence is defined by Mayer and
Salovey (1997) in the following way:
We define EI as the capacity to reason about emotions, and of emotions to
enhance thinking. It includes the abilities to accurately perceive emotions, to
access and generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions
and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to
promote emotional and intellectual growth (Mayer & Salovey 1997).

14
Emotional and social aptitude are often needed areas of growth for the children
involved in this study and low levels of either can contribute to poor outcomes in a
variety of areas.
The Why Try Program is designed to give children an opportunity to learn
skills from a multi-sensory approach that may be capable of spanning a variety of
learning styles. This approach is deeply connected to multiple intelligence theory.
Multiple intelligence theory suggests that individuals may learn and understand
information in radically different ways then traditionally believed. Gardner (1983)
defined seven distinct intelligences that each person possesses. In accordance with
this approach the Why Try Program access the youth trough a variety of these
intelligences, with the idea that the youth will have greater access to the skills.
Purpose, Design, and Utility
Purpose
This study is a summative evaluation designed to measure the effectiveness
of the Why Try intervention for students receiving residentially based services in a
VTC therapeutic residential facility and attending MVS. The goal of the intervention
is to improve the outlook of these children who have a history of low motivation,
low self–efficacy, poor social skills, and negative behaviors. This study will
specifically examine the pre and post test results on the General Self-Efficacy Scale
(GSE), the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), and the accompanying Teacher Report
Form (TRF) and the Youth Self Report (YSR) to determine the existence of any

15
significant changes after the implementation of the Why Try intervention has been
completed.
The larger purpose is to improve the long-term success of children in the
foster care system that attends a NPS. For the purpose of this study the term foster
care youth will encompass all of the children receiving services, including children
on probation, children referred through the IEP process, and foster care children.
While each of these groups has different legal designations, they share a common set
of problems, issues, and concerns. While this study will not provide the type of
longitudinal data necessary to document long-term improvement, it is hoped that the
initial results will inform future opportunities.
Design
The study was conducted as a Pre-Post, Quasi- Experimental design. In an
ideal world a true experiment with complete randomization would be best, however,
in this case, as with many research circumstances; randomization is simply not
possible for this particular study. To increase the validity of the study, matching of
like schools was used. McEwan and McEwan (2003) suggest the use of a matching
process to create a treatment and control group for comparison. In this study the
control group for matching purposes drew from another MVS campus serving
similar students with similar experiences, living situations, and presenting problems.
While it is believed that these students are relatively similar and are a good match for
comparison, the groups are still considered to be nonequivalent comparison groups.
The pre and post tests that were used were the GSE, CBCL, TRF, and the YSR. The

16
GSE and YSR were completed by the youth, the CBCL was completed by a primary
care giver, and the TRF was completed by the child’s teacher. A description of each
measure is included below. The youth involved in the study completed all pre-tests
in the early part of October 2007. After the pre test the control group at the Northern
California campus began weekly Why Try groups designed to teach them the
program and afford them the opportunity to experience the variety of activities
associated with the program. When the 16 week series of groups had been
completed the youth, their teachers, and primary care givers of both the treatment
and control groups then complete the appropriate post tests. The focus of the study
will be the examination of the quantitative data derived from the three measures
discussed above.
Unit of Analysis
In order to get a complete picture of the effectiveness of this intervention a
variety of measurements were used. The first is the General Self-Efficacy Scale
(GSE). The GSE was designed by Jerusalem and Schwarzer as a means to measure
a person’s perceived sense of self-efficacy. The purpose of the scale is best
described by its authors in the following manner; “The scale was created to assess a
general sense of perceived self-efficacy with the aim in mind to predict coping with
daily hassles as well as adaptation after experiencing all kinds of stressful life
events” (Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1979). The scale consists of 10 self administered
questions with a four point Likert type response scale (Jerusalem & Schwarzer,
1979). The GSE has proven to be both a valid and reliable measurement of self-

17
efficacy consistently over time and throughout many cultures around the world. The
strength of the assessment lies in its usefulness for a broad range of situations
including the ability to predict reaction to life changes or challenges (Jerusalem &
Schwarzer, n.d.).
The second measure that was used for both pre and post tests was the
Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) The ASEBA is
made up of three assessments, the CBCL, TRF, and YSR. All three of the ASEBA
assessments tools are designed to evaluate a child’s problem behaviors and
competencies. Each of the three ASEBA assessments consist of 140 questions
scored on a Likert type scale and is designed to be completed by the child, teacher,
and caregiver. The ASEBA assessments are designed to measure changes in
behavior over time after a treatment or intervention (Achenbach, 1991). The
ASEBA forms provide scores in the following empirically based syndrome areas:
aggressive behavior, anxious/depressed, attention problems, delinquent rule-breaking
behavior, social problems, thought problems, and withdrawn/depressed. In addition
there are two broad groupings of syndrome, internalizing problem and externalizing
problems as well as one overarching score of total problems (Achenbach, 1991). In
this present study, somatic complaints were not used. In addition this study will
refer to the seven specific empirically based syndromes and the three broader
groupings of syndromes simply as the syndrome scales. The ASEBA forms have
proven to be a reliable and valid scale and have been used in numerous studies
(Achenbach, 1991).

18
Utility of the Study
The study was designed as an evaluation of the Why Try Program with
children living in a VTC therapeutic residential facility and attending MVS. The
results will indicate whether or not the program is valuable enough to be considered
for continued implementation and if the program should be expanded to include
other MVS campuses. The study was designed to evaluate the utility of the
intervention for this specific program in this very specific setting. While this present
study was focused on internal program improvement and evaluation, more
importantly, the results of this study may demonstrate an increased level of optimism
for the future of foster care youth who historically have had a history of failed
placements and school difficulties. Society as a whole has a responsibility to
continually strive to improve programs for these children, in hopes of increasing the
likelihood of their future success.

19
Chapter Two
Literature Review
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review of the relevant literature
pertaining to the success of foster care youth receiving residentially based services
and attending a non-public school. The focus of the chapter will be to examine and
validate the problem, discuss the proposed solution while justifying its use, and
finally to review the relevant literature to support the problem identification and
implementation of the intervention.
As stated in chapter one, the outcomes for many children in foster care are
grim, recently there has been an increased level of attention being paid to the plight
of children in the foster care system. On the federal level, overall support for foster
care youth has decreased dramatically during the past 11 years (Child Welfare
League of America, 2007). The Federal government provides assistance to states for
the care of foster care youth thought Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. These
dollars are designated for a variety of child welfare services, including placement of
children in foster care families and group homes. In California for example, the
number of Title IV-E claims has gone down from 79,982 in 1998 to 49,803 in 2005
(Child Welfare League Of America, 2007). While the reasons for these reductions
are numerous, the result is less available adequate services for foster care youth. In
addition to reductions in Federal assistance, foster care rates in California have failed
to keep pace with increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The effects of the

20
under funding of services has hindered the ability of many programs to achieve the
level of positive outcomes desired.
During the past few years new legislation has been proposed and passed in
order to try to improve the lives of children in the foster care system. The changes in
legislation have been in response to the numerous studies that have indicated the
poor outcomes of many foster care children who age out of the system.
In 2004 California Assembly Bill (AB) 490 was enacted in order to improve
the educational outcomes of foster care youth and requires that foster care youth be
afforded the opportunity to remain in the least restrictive educational setting,
regardless of changes in their living situation (Steinberg, 2004). This legislation was
landmark legislation in that it attempted to deal with the ongoing problem of foster
care youth having multiple placement and multiple school changes. Following this
legislation, other bills have passed in California that have attempted to address the
problem, theses legislative attempts include but are not limited to the following
initiatives in the past few years:
AB 2216 requires the creation of the California Child Welfare Council that
will work to increase collaboration between agencies that serve children in the foster
care system (Bass, 2006). SB 1641 was put in place to encourage the placement of
foster care children into the most family like setting possible. The Senate Bill also
calls for changes in the community care licensing regulations in order to provide
more normalcy in the lives of foster care youth (Soto, 2006). AB 1453 which
passed in 2007 is by far the biggest recognition that the system for caring for foster

21
care children in the state of California needs improvement. AB 1453 calls for the
complete redesign of the current system, calling for the transformation of the current
group home system to a system of Residentially Based Services (RBS). According
to the California Alliance for Children and Family Services (2006) the RBS
legislation “… provides for a system of residentially-based services designed to
enhance services and expedite permanent family placement for children receiving
group home care by reforming the way group homes are utilized, the range of
services they offer and how they are reimbursed for these services.” This legislation
and other legislative interest in improving the system indicate an ongoing need to
address this problem.
While the current foster care system has come under increased scrutiny, there
have been measurable improvements for the lives of children in the foster care
system in California. According to the California Alliance of Children and Family
Services (2004):
Since 1991, state psychiatric hospital beds for children have been closed
(with a very few exceptions) and those children are now served in the
community and, since 1998, the vast majority of children placed in out-of-
state institutions have been returned to California. Similarly, delinquent youth
who are not a threat to the community but who in the past would have been
forced to remain in more restrictive and expensive juvenile hall, county camp
and ranch, and California Youth Authority settings, are now effectively
served by group homes in the community (California Alliance of Children
and Family Services, 2004, p. 4)

While the reduction in high levels of locked facilities is important, attention is now
being turned to the ability of the foster care system to produce results that will
prepare youth to be out of the system, as opposed to just reducing the level of care

22
they need. Recent studies indicate a need for improvement in the areas of education,
independent living skills, social skills and support, and employment opportunities.
Multiple studies have indicated that many foster care youth exit the foster
care system with considerable educational shortfalls (Courtney et al.; Bloome, 1997;
McMillan & Tucker, 1999; Parish et al., 2001; Zeltin & Weinberg, 2004; Barth,
1990). According to Courtney et al. (2007) close to 25 % of foster children in a
Midwest Study failed to earn a high school diploma or GED by the time they turned
21. A study by Parish et al. (2001) found that nearly 75% of foster care youth failed
to perform at grade level and 50% had been held back at least one grade level at
some time in their academic career. While this present study does not venture into
what types of educational improvement programs may be best for improving the
educational outcomes of students, it does seek to address some of the root causes of
these setbacks. Zeltin and Weinberg (2004) found that the cause of theses failures
can often be found to be rooted in the types of behaviors the foster care children
display.
They exhibit behavioral problems in school settings from aggressive,
demanding, immature, and attention-seeking behaviors to withdrawn,
anxious, and over-compliant behaviors. These difficulties lead many foster
youth to experience grade retention, placement below age-appropriate grade
levels, and placement in special education (Zeltin & Weinberg, 2004, p. 421-
422).

The Why Try intervention is designed to have an effect on these types of behavioral
issues that drive many of the deficits that foster care youth exhibit. While there have
only been a few studies of the effects of Why Try on school performance, there have

23
been initial positive results. A study in the Los Angeles County Office of
Education’s alternative education program found that students who had participated
in the Why Try program for only one semester showed significant improvement in
behavioral problems and increased levels of motivation (Eggett, 2003). Another
study conducted by the Alpine School District in Utah found that students who had
participated in the Why Try program at Pleasant Grove High School had an increased
grade point average, increased attendance records, fewer incidents of failure, and
higher graduation rates (Bushnell & Card, 2003). The theory behind the Why Try
Program is based primarily on building effective coping, functioning, and problem
solving skills, solution focused brief therapy, multiple intelligences theory, and
emotional intelligence.
Skill Development
Having the independent living skills necessary to be a productive member of
society is essential for foster care youth, as many of them exit the system with very
little support. Barth (1990) found that foster care youth exiting the system had very
little ability to access needed services and support, and lacked basic independent
living skills such as how to use public transportation or access medical services. A
1991 study of independent living found that youth who had participated in training in
independent living skills had improved outcomes compared to youth who had not
received such skill training (Cook, 1991).
Teaching specific skills, developing relationship skills, and increasing overall
motivation and determination are essential goals of the Why Try program, and seem

24
to be a good match for populations in need of improving in these areas. Other
programs focused on theses areas have had positive results. Larzelere, Daly, Davis,
Chmelka, and Handwerk (2004) conducted a study of children living in group
settings using the Family Home Program (FHP) employing skill building,
relationship building, and self-discipline. The results of the study showed positive
benefits for the participants, decreasing scores on the Childhood Behavioral
Checklist (CBCL) assessment from clinical levels to near normal levels from intake
to discharge.
Other research studies have also indicated that social skills training programs
can have a positive effect on outcomes for youth. Blake, Wang, Cartledge, and
Gardner (2000) conducted a study of middle school students who participated in both
social skills training and peer counseling. The results indicated lasting behavioral
improvements for the children who participated.
Solution Focused Brief Therapy
Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) is a clinical approach that focuses on
the development of solutions from problems, rather than focusing on problem
(Gingerich & Eisengart, 2000). Essential to SFBT is the idea that clients truly want
to change, but need skill development, and or techniques to use to achieve change.
Several early follow up studies found that clients reported increased success in
achieving goals when surveyed post intervention (Dejong & Hopwood, 1996;
Shazer, 1985; Weakland, Fisch, Watzlawick, & Bodin, 1974; Lee, 1997).

25
A study done by Seagram (1997) of the use of SFBT with young offenders
offers a similar population as this present study. The study used a matching design
in order to create control and treatment groups. The youth involved demonstrated a
history of violent and or anti-social behaviors. The treatment consisted of 10 SFBY
sessions, as well as follow up assessment after an additional 10 weeks. Several
assessments were used to evaluate the youth both pre a post intervention. The results
are summarized by Gingerich and Eisengart (2000) as follows:
Scores on the Solution-Focused Questionnaire indicated that the treatment
group made more progress in solving problems and had higher confidence in
their ability to maintain changes then did the control group. Carlson
Psychological Survey data indicated that the treatment group had
significantly more optimism for the future, greater empathy, fewer antisocial
tendencies, and less chemical abuse. Treatment group subjects showed
significantly less difficulty with concentration (Achenbach). (Gingerich &
Eisengart, 2000, p. 485)

While the results of many SFBT have been promising, most interventions
included only individual SFBT Therapy sessions. In this present study there is a
focus on the use of SFBT in a group setting through the Why Try Program. In
addition to the weekly groups, each youth does have individual sessions as well, but
they are not limited exclusively to the Why Try Program. Studies in the use of SFBT
in group settings are more limited then individual therapy sessions. A study by
Lafountain and Garner (1996) focused specifically on the use of SFBT in groups in a
school setting. The study was a quasi-experimental design in which the treatment
group participated in a series of SFBT groups with pre and post tests of the Index of
Personality Characteristics (IPC). Post tests were administered eight weeks prior to

26
the intervention. Results were mixed, with little or no effect being found in
academic areas, but with results from the IPC showed the experimental group had
increased levels of self esteem, better attitudes about themselves and their abilities,
and an increase in reported coping skills (Lafountain & Garner, 1996; Gingerich &
Eisengart, 2000).
Another study utilizing SFBT in school based group settings examined
middle school students who participated in an eight week series of SFBT groups.
The study was a quasi-experimental pre-post design using GPA and attendance
records as the dependent variables. The results were mixed, with findings indicating
a measurable increase in the GPA of at risk middle school students as compared to
the control group, however, no difference was found in attendance patterns of the
two groups (Newsome, 2004).
Multiple Intelligences Theory
The theory of multiple intelligences (MI) was first written about by Howard
Gardner in his book Frames of Mind (1983). In this now classic work Gardner
described seven distinct abilities of a person’s brain. The seven Multiple
Intelligences include: Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Musical, Bodily-
Kinesthetic, Special, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal (Gardner, 1983). Gardner
framed a new concept of human mind and the idea of intelligence. Gardner
expanded the traditional meaning of intelligence. He defined intelligences as a
“capacity to solve problems or to fashion products that are valued in one or more
cultural settings and detailed a set of criteria for what counts as human intelligence”

27
(Gardner & Hatch, 1989, p. 5). The concepts described by Gardener have been used
in a variety of educational and psychological settings. Early studies indicated the MI
was an effective way of measuring, conceptualizing, and assessing human
intelligence (Gardner & Hatch, 1989).
Many schools have integrated the use of a MI approach to the development of
curriculum. There is wide support for integrating teaching approaches in a variety
ways, so as to appeal to different domains of intelligences. Activities and curriculum
are designed to give students the opportunity to experience new material through a
variety of mediums designed to access several of the levels of intelligences.
Campbell (1990) found that the use of MI stations in a third grade classroom found
that the students demonstrated increased multimodal skills and improved attitudes
and behavior.
Despite its wide spread use in schools, there is little empirical evidence to
prove the validity of MI, and many critics have questioned Gardner’s Theory.
Despite the lack of this empirical evidence, the use of alternative approaches, such as
music, art, and kinesthetic activities continues to grow. Like all theories, there will
always be alternate theories that call into question the validity of other theories.
Chen (2004) examined the scientific validity of MI, its development, and its utility,
noting that MI theory has become a well established means for describing and
evaluating the learning profiles, cognitive functioning, and potential of individuals.
Chen (2004) further noted that “its scientific establishment is grounded in empirical
data that describe the functioning of multiple abilities in diverse situations” (p.18).

28
The situations that MI has been utilized in include both psychological and
educational settings. MI’s value as a theory is summed up well as follows:
A theory is not necessarily valuable because it is supported by the results of
experimental tests. Rather, its value depends on the contributions it makes to
understanding and to practice in the field. The value of MI theory has been
clearly established by its many successful applications in the field (Chen,
2004, p. 22)

Motivation
Clark and Estes (2002) explained the role motivation plays in our life in the
following way; “Motivation gets us going, keeps us moving, and tells us how much
effort to spend on work tasks”(Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 80). Motivation is a
combination of three factors: active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark &
Estes, 2002). Active choice refers to the level at which a person actively makes a
choice to pursue goals and does not include the mere intention to pursue ones goals.
Persistence refers to the amount of time and effort a persons commits to their goals.
If a person fails to assert the time or effort toward the completion of a goal they are
demonstrating a motivational persistence problem. The final piece of the
motivational puzzle, mental effort, refers to the amount of effort a person expends
thinking about goal attainment, especially if the goal involves the development of
new knowledge or skills (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Marzano (2003) summarized the research on motivation and its relationship
to achievement. His research contributes to the establishment of the well accepted
notion of a positive link between the two. Marzano (2003) formulated four action
steps designed to assist in the development and enhancement of student motivation.

29
The four steps include: (a) providing feedback about their knowledge gain, (b)
provide inherently engaging activities, (c) provide opportunities to work on self
initiated long-term projects, and (d) teach students about motivation and how it
affects them personally. Solutions to motivational problems for the students
involved in this study should include at a minimum, some form of the action steps
recommended by Marzano in order to increase their effectiveness.
Marzano (2003) summarized the major research areas of Motivation in to the
following five subjects: drive theory, attribution theory, self-worth theory, emotions,
and self-systems. These five categories are useful in examining the variety of
motivational issues and challenges that the students involved in this study face.
Drive Theory
Drive theory states that motivation is divided in to two distinct forces, or
drives, either a desire for success, or a fear of failure (Marzano, 2003). The desire
for success motivates some students to work harder in order to attain the positive
emotional reward that achievement provides (Marzano, 2003; Pintrich & Schunk,
2002). Still for other the fear of failure can have a negative effect. These students
tend to avoid challenges, and in many cases will actively avoid situations in which
they will be challenged. Often this avoidance will lead to self-handicapping
strategies and self protection techniques (Covington, 2000; Marzano, 2003) Atkinson
(1957, 1964) developed the idea of these two types of motivations, competing in a
sense to create an inner balance. His theory is summarized by Covington (2000) in
the following way:

30
These two motivational dispositions were characterized largely in emotional
terms. For example, hope for success and the anticipation of pride at winning
or prevailing over others was said to encourage success-orientated individuals
to strive for excellence. On the other hand, a capacity for experiencing
shame was thought to drive failure orientated persons to avoid situations
where they believed themselves likely to fail. It was the balance- or more
aptly the imbalance- between these two factors that was believed to
determine the direction, intensity, and quality of achievement behavior. (p.
173)

For many special education students, the choice is easy, they already know shame
and its experience, and they have in many cases perfected the avoidance approach.
Attribution Theory
Stemming from the concepts of drive theory, Marzano (2003) summarized
the work of Weiner (1972) and Weiner, Frieze, Kulla, Reed, Rest, & Rosenbaum
(1971), concluding that student motivation is not fixed in two main orientations as
prescribed by drive theory, but instead is rooted in a variety of attributes that the
student identifies and associates with their success or failure. In the view of
attribution theory then the students’ motivations is less likely to be stuck in either a
success or failure orientation. Instead the student can change his or her motivation as
he or she attributes success and failure to a variety of environmental and personal
factors (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Weiner, 1986; Marzano, 2003). These factors can
be either internal or external and include such things as luck, ability, effort and
difficulty. Marzano (2003) concluded that it was the variety of motivational factors
that the student attributes the likelihood of success or failure to that distinguishes
attribution theory from drive theory, because the motivation was more fluid,

31
allowing the student the opportunity to change their motivation from situation to
situation depending on to what they attributed their likelihood of success.
Self-Worth Theory
According to Covington (2000), who explained that many students connect
their self worth directly to their levels of achievement. He points out that there is a
level of pressure that can build when a student finds themselves in a society, or
school, family, or peer group who places a high value on achievement as a measure
of success and ultimately of self-worth. For many students this pressure leads to an
overwhelming fear of failure. Marzano (2003, p.147) points out that in a classroom
setting “…high academic accomplishment [is] relative to others, then by definition,
only a few high achieving students can obtain a sense of self worth.” Leaving the
rest with an unbearable sense that no matter how hard they try, they are likely to fail.
For many, this leads to a series of self protective strategies in which the student
eventually stops trying as a defense mechanism (Covington, 2000).
Emotions
LeDoux (1996) described the profound effect that emotions can have on
motivation. His views were summarized by Marzano (2003, p. 147) “For LeDoux,
then, emotions are primary motivators that often override an individual’s system of
values and beliefs relative to their influence on human behavior.” For the children
involved in this present study, emotions have a huge effect on their level of
motivation. Each child in the study has been diagnosed with a level of emotional

32
disturbance that interferes profoundly with day to day functions, let alone their level
of motivation.
Self-System
The self-system regulates a person’s ability to manage multiple goals, and
decide which to act upon (Marzano, 2003). Marzano (2003) states that the self-
system is similar to many other theories, such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, in
that it contains deeply held beliefs and values that regulate ones ability to manage
motivation. These beliefs effect how a person sets goals, persists at achieving them,
and how well they recover from setbacks. Marzano (2003) points out that the self-
system can have a tremendous effect on student motivation and how teachers can or
should approach motivation in the classroom setting. According to Marzano (2003),
the research on the self indicates that
It seems clear that students develop drives for success or failure avoidance
and that these drives affect their willingness to engage in classroom tasks.
For some students, challenging tasks present no obstacle because of their
strong drive for success; for others, even simple tasks are quite threatening
because of their strong drive to avoid failure (p. 158).

For special education students who have a history of failure and humiliation in
school settings, the problems related to avoidance failure are immense, and often
cause them to not even try to achieve goals. As pointed out by Marzano (2003) this
tendency however can be adjusted, and through practice and understanding of
learning styles and approaches, students can gain control of their deep, sometimes
unconscious, motivational barriers.

33
Pintrich and Schunk (2002) have pointed out that the motivation can be
defined in a variety of ways, and that differing opinions on the nature of motivation
and the role it plays in each person’s ability to achieve are still being debated. For
the purpose of this study the following definition will be used: “motivation is the
process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and sustained” (Pintrich &
Schunk, 2002, p. 5). This definition places a focus on setting goals and acting on
those goals. Many of the students at MVS do not set goals well and lack the life-
skills needed to sustain activity toward completion of goals. In many cases their
goals that have been set have been identified by others, either by way of an IEP or
through treatment goals established by a social worker or therapist. In order to begin
to take responsibility for themselves these children must be taught how to set goals
and how to problem solve when confronted with obstacles to these goals.
Motivation has a direct effect on learning, performance and behavior (Pintrich &
Schunk, 2002). A lack of motivation therefore, can manifest its self in many
different ways, both in social and educational settings. For children who are already
suffering from a variety of mental illnesses and emotional disturbance, low
motivation can have a compounding effect on their ability to be successful in both
social and educational settings.
Self Efficacy
Bandura (1994) noted that “self efficacy is defined as people’s belief about
their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence
over events that effect their lives”(p.71). A person’s self-efficacy affects the way

34
they think and feel about themselves and their ability to accomplish tasks or goals.
Bandura (1994) explained that a strong sense of self-efficacy allows a person the
inner strength to accomplish tasks and goals more effectively and with greater
success. People with stronger self-efficacy will set more goals that are more
challenging on a regular basis. They will also have more success in attaining their
goals. This inner sense of accomplishment builds to the point that they are also more
likely to approach challenging situations with a sense of control over their abilities.
Bandura (1994) further points out that increased levels of self-efficacy can reduce
ones level of depression and stress.
Lower levels of self-efficacy have the opposite effect. According to Bandura
(1994) people with low levels of self-efficacy tend to have lower aspirations and
avoid situations that challenge them. When engaging in difficult task they will often
focus on their limitations and make excuses, often giving up quickly. Lower levels
also tend to lead to less goal setting and less goal accomplishment, thus creating a
vicious circle of low effort followed by low expectations and less goal setting.
People with low levels of self-efficacy also tend to have higher levels of stress,
depression, and poor problem solving skills and abilities (Pajares, 1995,
Bandura1994).
Pajares (1995) summarized the effect of self-efficacy on people’s lives in the
following way:
Strong self-efficacy beliefs enhance human accomplishment and personal
well-being in many ways. People with a strong sense of personal competence
in a domain approach difficult tasks in that domain as challenges to be

35
mastered rather than as dangers to be avoided, have greater intrinsic interest
in activities, set challenging goals and maintain a strong commitment to
them, heighten their efforts in the face of failure, more easily recover their
confidence after failures or setbacks, and attribute failure to insufficient effort
or deficient knowledge and skills which they believe they are capable of
acquiring. (Pajares, 1995, p. 3)

Summary
The review of literature validates the continued poor outcomes for foster care
youth, indicating that these children face an uphill battle if they hope to be successful
when they leave the system. These poor outcomes are compounded for foster care
youth who require special education services. Children placed in the foster care
system often struggle with low self-efficacy, high level of depression, psychotic
disorders, learning disabilities, emotional and behavioral issues. Study after study
point to the need to better prepare foster care children for the brutal reality of exiting
the foster care system. Study after study indicate that foster care youth lack the
educational, social , and life skills needed to be properly prepared for the future
(Zeltin & Weinberg, 2004;Cook, 1991; Wertheimer, 2002) . Due to the continued
focus on the poor outcomes, many legislators both at the feral level and in California
have begun to respond to the concerns with a variety of initiates designed to improve
outcomes for youth in foster care and special education settings (California Alliance
for Children and Family Services, 2006). This focus has been especially critical of
higher end services such as residentially based services and non-public schools.
The solution being examined in this study is the use of the Why Try Program.
The program is designed to increase students ability to set goals, problem solve, and

36
establish motivational level to sustain have a reason to keep trying when facing
adversity. The Why Try Program is rooted in primarily in the theories of solution
focused brief therapy, multiple intelligence theory, emotional intelligence, and the
building of effective coping, functioning, and problem solving skills. Issues of social
skills development and self-efficacy development are built into the program through
a variety of visual analogies and skill building activities.
Central to the success of all children is their level of motivation. Motivation
consists of a variety of theoretical concepts including drive theory, attribution theory,
emotions and self systems (Marzano, 2003). Central to all motivational issues is a
person’s perceived self-efficacy. Self efficacy is important to the success of the
children involved in the study because of the negative effect low levels of self-
efficacy on motivation. Creating opportunities for increased levels of self-efficacy
will lead to increased levels of success for foster care youth.

37
Chapter Three
Method
Design Summary
This study was a quasi-experimental study using a pre-post independent
group designed with a nonequivalent control group. Approximately 75 students at
Mountain Valley School (MVS) who were living in an out of home Licensed
Children’s Institutions (LCI) placement participated in a treatment designed to
improve their self-efficacy as well as improve their overall ability to function well at
school, home, and in society. The treatment began in October 2007 and consisted of
16 weekly group sessions. The study was a summative evaluation with the following
design format:
E 01 X 02
C 01 02
The scientific notation is defined as follows:
Experimental Group MVS –Northern California Pre (2007) X
Post (2008)
Control Group MVS- Southern California Pre (2007)
Post (2008)
The Pre test was administered in late September of 2007 and the post test was
administered in March of 2008, after the 16 week series of groups had been
completed. Pre and Post tests were administered for both the experimental and
control groups.

38
It is important to note that this study was designed to evaluate the
effectiveness of the intervention for the students attending MVS and living in a
Victory Treatment Center (VTC) residential treatment facility. Due to the limited
scope of the study, the results, positive, negative, or neutral, cannot necessarily be
extrapolated to other settings. The results of this present study serve as a resource
for assessing the impact that The Why Try program has had with the children
involved in the study.
Participants
The primary participants of the study were students at MVS Northern
California campus who are also living in a VTC therapeutic residential facility.
These students have traditionally had a difficult time functioning in school, home,
and other social settings. Students involved ranged from age 12 to 18 with
approximately 30% being female, 70% male. The control group was made up of
students from the Southern California MVS campus and consisted of students living
in an out of home LCI placement as well. The control group was purposefully
selected as a matched pair because the students have similar backgrounds, living
situations, and are attending a similar school.
Furthermore, included in the study were the teachers and primary care givers
of the students involved in the study. They participated in two distinct ways. First
the teacher and primary care givers were asked to complete the CBCL and or the
TRF forms for both pre and post test. The students completed both pre and post tests
for the GSE and the YSR form.

39
Intervention Description
The intervention that was used with the control group was the Why Try
Program. The Why Try Program is designed to teach youth a variety of ways to
deal with life’s challenges, including goal setting and problem solving skills. The
program is designed to use a multi-sensory approach to teaching students through
pictures, hands-on activities, and music. According to the organizations brochure,
the Why Try Program:
The Why Try Program is a strength-based approach to helping youth
overcome their challenges and improve outcomes in the areas of truancy,
behavior, and academics. It is based on sound, empirical principles, including
Solution Focused Brief Therapy, Social and Emotional Intelligence, and
multi-sensory learning. The idea is straight-forward: Teach social and
emotional principles to youth in a way they can understand and remember.
This is accomplished using a series of 10 pictures (visual analogies). Each
visual teaches a discrete principle, such as resisting peer-pressure, obeying
laws and rules, and that decisions have consequences. The visual components
are then reinforced by music and physical activities. The major learning
styles—visual, auditory, and body-kinesthetic—are all addressed. (The Why
Try Organization, n.d.)

The Why Try Program is designed to give the youth a series of problem solving
skills intended to help the youth determine what things in life are important to the
youth and how to set goals related to increasing their freedom, opportunity and self
respect. The students participated in a 16 week series of group activities in which
they had the opportunity to learn the Why Try Program curriculum and engage in
activities designed to improve their understanding and ability to utilize the material.

40
Implementation
The Why Try program was implemented on a weekly basis in groups of six
children and was facilitated by a clinician. The Clinicians followed a pre-designed
curriculum for the Why Try Program. Each Clinician received a workbook guide
designed to structure the process and to keep all of the groups on a similar pace.
Each Clinician also received training in the Why Try program and how to implement
and facilitate the process. This professional development was important in insuring
the fidelity of the implementation process. There were seven different clinicians
implementing the program to 42 different children. Without clear guidelines and
training in the implementation there would be no fidelity and the validity of the
results would be compromised. Approximately half way through the process, two
Clinicians were unable to continue implementing the groups. Both of these groups
were subsequently lead by a Residential Services Supervisor who had received the
same training in the Why Try Program and continued to implement the same
curriculum.
Instrumentation
Quantitative data was collected by four distinct methods. First the CBCL,
TRF, and YSR were used as both a pre and post test instrument. The CBCL
measures a variety of syndrome scales, including: aggressive behavior,
anxious/depressed, attention problems, delinquent rule-breaking behavior, social
problems, thought problems, and withdrawn/depressed. In addition to the individual
syndromes, the ASEBA forms measure two broad groupings of syndromes,

41
externalizing, internalizing, problems and an overall measure of total problems
(Achenbach, 1991). The ASEBA forms also measures somatic complaints; however
this variable was not used in this study. The ASEBA inventories gather information
form three distinct viewpoints in the child’s life; thereof producing a more complete
and accurate accounting for the child’s level of functioning in the aforementioned
areas.
The second quantitative measure is the GSE. The GSE is designed to
measure an individuals perceived level of self-efficacy. The GSE consist of the
following 10 questions (Jerusalem & Schwarzer, n.d.):
1. I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough.
2. If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want.
3. It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals.
4. I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events.
5. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations.
6. I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort.
7. I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping
abilities.
8. When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions.
9. If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution.
10. I can usually handle whatever comes my way.
The GSE consists of a four point Likert scale and was administered as a pre and post
test for both the treatment and control groups.

42
Multiple types of quantitative data were gathered in an attempt to strengthen
the validity of the results. In a study such as this it is difficult to isolate any one
intervention program and subscribe all the changes to the intervention. In reality all
of the children in the study experienced a variety of things in their lives during the
time the intervention was occurring. To help reduce these other factors and
strengthen the study, Patton (2002) suggests the use of triangulation of data to
increase the consistency of the results by using multiple data sources. According to
Patton, “Each type and source of data has strengths and weaknesses. Using a
combination of data types-triangulation, a reoccurring theme in this book- increases
validity as strengths of one approach can compensate for the weakness of another
approach” (Patton, 2002, p. 306). In the case of this study, the use of the GSE,
CBCL, TRF, and the YSR and create a situation in which the strengths of each data
source were able to be accentuated and the weaknesses can be compensated for.
Quantitative Analysis
The quantitative analysis began with an independent group t-test in order to
determine any statistically significant difference between the pre and post test means
on each of the ASEBA measurements as well as the GSE pre and post test scores. A
dependent t-test will also be used to measure the means of the behavioral data pre
and post treatment. In each case an independent group t-test will be conducted to
compare experimental and control groups. In addition to the t-tests, all sets will
require an analysis of effect size via Cohen’s d test for effect size and an analysis of
percentage gains.

43
Limitations of Study
The first limitation of this study was related to internal validity. Internal
validity in this study can be in question because of the lack of true randomization and
the selection of the students at the MVS Northern California campus as the
experimental group could possibly represent a selection bias as this author is the
Executive Director of this location. To help increase the internal validity a control
group from comparable school was examined. While this approach did not eliminate
all internal validity concerns, it did contribute to an increase in the validity of the
study.
The second limitation was that of external validity. Based on several factors,
including sample size and selection, it may be difficult to generalize the results to
other populations or locations. While it is hoped that the results are an indication of
the true effect of the treatment, there are a variety of other, uncontrollable factors
that may have had an effect on the pre and post test scores. The students involved in
this study were all placed in an LCI and are receiving intensive day treatment
services, and have regular sessions with individual therapist. Ascribing changes in
any of the areas solely to the treatment may be challenging. The use of a non-
equivalent control group was done in effort to increase the validity, both internal and
external. A variety of dependent variables were also measured to increase the
overall validity of the study.
The third limitation is that of reliability. The sample size in this study is
considerably smaller than would ideally be desired. The estimated sample size for

44
the experimental group as well as the control group was 40-45. This is not a large
sample and the numbers decreased due to mobility of students during the study.
While the size of the sample is a limitation, it does not reduce the importance of the
study to the students and staff who participated.
The fourth limitation is that of objectivity. In the case of this study, the
researcher is the Executive Director of MVS and VTC. Therefore, the researcher has
a level of commitment and interest that may have clouded his judgment and
interpretations. In order to reduce this concern the researcher was committed to
objectively interpreting results and was truly open to all possible outcomes. While
the researcher is personally and professionally committed to improving the lives of
the children involved in the study, the approach that is taken to achieve this goal is
not important; therefore, the researcher does not have a personal investment in to the
Why Try Program over any other possible approach. The purpose of the study was
simply to make an assessment of the Why try Program, not to verify its
effectiveness.

45
Chapter Four
Findings
The Summative evaluation portion of this is study examined four dependent
variables. The dependent Variables were the General Self Efficacy (GSE),Child
Behavior Checklist (CBCL), Teacher Report Form (TRF), and the Youth Self Report
(YSR) assessments.. The CBCL, TRF, and YSR measured ten distinct dependent
variables and comprise as the assessments of the Achenbach System of Empirically
Based Assessments (ASEBA). In this chapter results will be examined in the
following order: first the results from the GSE pre and post test will be examined,
followed by the results of the ASEBA forms, grouped by syndrome scales. This will
make it possible to compare the perspective of each rater on each scale.
General Self Efficacy (GSE)
The GSE scores were examined by conducting a T-test to determine the
difference between pre test means. The results are outlined in table 1 below:

Table 1: T-Test

Group N Mean Std. Deviation
Control 31 2.948 .526
Experimental 29 2.520 .535

These results indicated that the pre-test means were not equal, with the experimental
group's pre test being significantly lower then that of the control group. Because of

46
this an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted in order to produce
equivalent adjusted means. The adjusted means for the pre-test difference can be
found in Table 2.

Table 2. Estimated Marginal Means 95% Confidence Interval

Group Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Control 2.586a .134 2.314 2.858
Experimental 3.011a .121 2.767 3.256
a. Covariates appearing in model are evaluated at the following values: Efficacy Pre=2.648

In order to determine if the difference between the post test scores of the
experimental and control groups could be attributed to chance rather then the
intervention. The results of this test are found in table 3.

Table 3. Test of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Type III
Sum of Squares
Df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 2.122a 2 1.061 3.450 0.42
Intercept 5.887 1 5.887 19.139 .000
Efficacy Pre 1.114 1 1.114 3.621 .065
Group 1.629 1 1.629 5.295 .027
Error 11.382 37 .308
Total 331.600 40
Corrected Total 13.504 39
a. R Squared= .157 (Adjusted R Squared-.112)

47
The results in table 3 indicate that the difference between the experimental and
control groups post test were statistically significant at .027 (p<.150). With this
statistical significance established, the next step was to examine the growth of the
experimental group from pre to post and whether or not the growth was statistically
and or practically significant when compared with the control group. This was
accomplished by conducting a paired sample t-test to measure the significance of the
gains. These results are outlined in table 4 and 5.

Table 4: Paired Sample Statistics

Group Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
Control Pre 2.833 18 .553 .130
Control Post 2.644 18 .533 .125
Exp. Pre 2.495 22 .537 .114
Exp. Post 2.96 22 .604 .129

Table 5: Paired Sample Tests

Group Diff in Mean Std. Deviation Sig.
Control Pre-Post .189 .481 .144
Exp Pre-Post -.468 .778 .010*
Note.*=p < .150

The adjusted mean for the control group actually went down from pre to post test
from 2.833 to 2.644, however the difference of -.189 had statistical significance level

48
of .144 that was not considered statistically significant (p<.150). The difference
between the pre and post test for the experimental group was .468 with a significance
level of .010 which is considered to be statistically significant (p<.150). These
results indicate that the students involved in the treatment made statistically
significant gains in their level of self-efficacy as measured by the GSE.
While statistically significant gains for the experimental group are
encouraging, the sample size is relatively small. In order to further examine the
results Cohen’s d was used to measure the effect size of the growth from pre to post
test. Effect size is determined by taking the ration of gain the gain by the standard
deviation of the control group. The pre study criteria that was identified for practical
significance was d > .20. To determine the effect size in this case, the mean
difference of the pre and post test scores for the control group (.468) is divided by
the standard deviation of the control group (.481). The effect size for this measure
was .97, which is greater then .20 resulting in a determination that the growth from
pre to post test of the experimental group met the standard for practical significance
as well as statistical significance.
The ASEBA assessment forms measure a series of syndrome scales. For the
purpose of the study ten of the syndrome scales were selected to measure change in a
pre-post format. As with the GSE scale, both the experimental and control groups
were tested with a pre and post test with the experimental group receiving the
treatment in between the two sets of tests. The ASEBA test forms produce raw
scores for each of the syndrome, these score are then converted to t-scores in order

49
create a common metric for each syndrome scale (Achenbach, 1991). The seven
syndrome scales used in this study were, anxious/depressed, withdrawn/depressed,
social problems, thought problems, attention problems, rule breaking behavior, and
aggressive behavior. The scores range from 0 to 100, with the identification of
ranges from 65 to 69 as being considered borderline clinical and scores above 70 to
be considered in the clinical range. It is important to note then that positive change
over time would result in a lower t-score. In addition to the seven syndrome scales
that were used in this study, three problem scales were also used. The problem
scales included internalizing, externalizing and total problem scales. Scoring for
these scales uses the same t-score formats.
To begin the analysis of the ASEBA assessments, the results from changes in
the pre to post test scores were measured to determine if there was either significant
statistical and or practical changes from pre to post test, following the intervention.
To measure the change, a paired sample t-test was done for each scale. The results
for each scale are found in tables 6-15.

Table 6: Pre/Post Change : Anxious/Depressed

Pre Post Change Sd.Pre Effect (d) Sig(p)
CBCL 63.13 62.53 0.60 9.35 0.06 0.72
TRF 60.50 58.88 1.62 7.95 0.21* 0.256
YSR 60.24 58.00 2.24 8.92 0.25* 0.264
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

50
No statistically significant changes were indicated from pre to post test in the
anxious/depressed syndrome scales. There was however a practical significance
found in the change from pre to post test for the TRF and the YSR. The TRF saw
students lower their score from a mean of 60.50 to 58.88. This was a change of 1.62
with an effect size of 0.21 which is considered practical significant (d>.20). Results
of the YSR found a change in means of 2.254, with an effect size of 0.25 (d>.20).

Table 7: Pre/Post Change: Withdrawn/Depressed

Pre Post Change Sd.Pre Effect (d) Sig(p)
CBCL 61.81 61.13 0.68 9.15 0.07 0.644
TRF 60.59 58.19 2.40 10.54 0.23* 0.206
YSR 58.76 59.14 -0.38 8.26 -0.05 0.826
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

The syndrome scale of withdrawn/depressed had no mean changes from pre
to post test that met the requirements for statistical significance (p < .150). The TRF
did however indicate a change in mean from pre to post test of 2.40, with an effect
size of 0.23, meeting the requirements for practical significance.

51
Table 8: Pre/Post Change: Social Problems

Pre Post Change Sd.Pre Effect (d) Sig(p)
CBCL 65.69 66.63 -0.94 7.64 -0.12 0.421
TRF 64.09 63.19 0.90 7.06 0.13 0.432
YSR 63.57 59.62 3.95 8.51 0.46* 0.065*
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

The CBCL and TRF assessments indicated no statistically or practically
significant changes in the pre to post test means for social problems. The YSR
indicated a change of 3.95 with a statistical significance level of .065 and an effect
size of 0.46. Both of theses scores are in the significant range and indicate an
improvement in the youth view of them selves related to their social problems after
being involved in the treatment.

Table 9: Pre/Post Change: Thought Problems

Pre Post Change Sd.Pre Effect (d) Sig(p)
CBCL 64.88 63.14 1.47 8.72 0.17 0.327
TRF 61.28 59.59 1.69 8.93 0.19 0.190
YSR 60.10 56.52 3.58 6.40 0.56* 0.058*
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

Table 9 indicates no statistically or practically significant changes from pre to
post test on the either the CBCL or the TRF for thought problems. There was
however both statistical and practical significance found with the change in mean on

52
the YSR. The difference from pre to post tests on the YSR for thought problems was
3.58 with a statistical significance of .058 and an effect size of 0.56. These results
are well within the pre-identified ranges for significance.

Table 10: Pre/Post Change: Attention Problems

Pre Post Change Sd.Pre Effect (d) Sig(p)
CBCL 66.09 64.25 1.84 9.82 0.19 0.211
TRF 62.44 60.86 2.03 8.17 0.25* 0.130
YSR 60.86 59.52 1.34 9.42 0.14 0.540
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

Table 10 shows the results for the attention problems syndrome scale.
Changes in the means were not found to be statistically or practically significant for
any of the ASEBA forms. The TRF was found to be practically significant at d =
0.25 but was not found to be statistically significant at p = 0.130.

Table 11: Pre/Post Change: Rule Breaking Behavior

Pre Post Change Sd.Pre Effect (d) Sig(p)
CBCL 65.94 67.34 -0.40 7.49 -0.19 0.101*
TRF 61.59 61.41 0.18 6.95 0.03 0.859
YSR 62.14 61.05 1.09 7.01 0.16 0.544
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

53
Table 11 indicates no statistically or practically significant positive changes
for rule breaking behaviors. Interestingly, there was however a statistically
significant change on the pre to post test mean score of the CBCL. The change
however was to the negative, indicating that the CBCL results found that there was
actually an increased level of perceived rule breaking behaviors. The increase in
mean score, indicating a negative effect, did not however have a large enough effect
size to be considered practically significant.

Table 12: Pre/Post Change: Aggressive Behavior

Pre Post Change Sd.Pre Effect (d) Sig(p)
CBCL 70.97 70.78 0.19 10.18 0.02 0.906
TRF 66.16 66.28 -0.12 8.22 -0.01 0.919
YSR 65.76 64.38 1.38 9.67 0.14 0.571
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

Results in table 12 show that there were no statistically or practically
significant changes from pre to post test in the syndrome scale of aggressive
behaviors.

Table 13: Pre/Post Change: Internalizing Problems

Pre Post Change Sd.Pre Effect (d) Sig(p)
CBCL 61.31 60.19 1.12 8.97 0.12 0.536
TRF 60.13 57.84 2.29 7.91 0.29* 0.181*
YSR 60.38 54.24 6.14 9.78 0.63* 0.016*
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

54
Table 13 shows that while there was no significant change on the
internalizing problems scale for the CBCL, there was significant change in both the
TRF and the YSR forms. Reports from the teacher on the TRF indicated a change of
2.29 from pre to post test with a statistical significance level of 0.181 and a practical
significance level of 0.016. Changes in the pre to post test mean score for the YSR
showed a very large change of 6.14 point. The effect size of the change was 0.63
with a statistical significance of 0.016.

Table 14: Pre/Post Change: Externalizing Problems

Pre Post Change Sd.Pre Effect (d) Sig(p)
CBCL 68.31 68.63 -0.32 9.29 -0.03 0.737
TRF 64.75 65.09 -0.34 7.61 -0.04 0.741
YSR 64.48 59.10 5.38 8.53 0.63* 0.124*
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

Results of the externalizing problems scale in table 14 show results form the
YSR found a 5.38 point change in the mean. This change was both statistically and
practically significant with an effect size of 0.63 and a statistical significance score
of 0.124. There were no statistically or practically significant changes on either the
CBCL or the TRF.

55
Table 15: Pre/Post Change: Total Problems

Pre Post Change Sd.Pre Effect (d) Sig(p)
CBCL 67.75 67.19 0.56 7.38 0.08 0.614
TRF 64.78 63.78 1.00 6.29 0.16 0.378
YSR 64.05 57.48 6.57 8.46 0.78* 0.035*
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

Table 15 demonstrates that in the total problems scale, there were no
significant changes in mean scores on the CBCL or the TRF. There was however a
6.57 point change on the YSR in the area of total problems. The effect size for the
change was 0.78 with a statistical significance score of 0.035.
The next test used to examine the results of the study was the univariate
analysis of variance to measure the difference in the adjusted means of the control
vs. experimental groups. This test was conducted to determine if the differences
between groups could be attributed to the intervention, or were simply due to chance.
As with the t-test, the statistical significance level was set to p<.150 and practical
significance was set for d>.20.
Table 16 reflects practically significant results for both the CBCL and the
YSR for the anxious/depressed syndrome scale. Effect sizes for the CBCL and YSR
were 0.26 and 0.20 respectfully. There were no statistically significant differences
found on the CBCL, TRF or YSR, and practical significance was not established for
the TRF.

56
Table 16: Univariate Analysis of Variance: Anxious/Depressed

Experimental Control Difference F SDcntrl/post SIG(p) Effect(d)
CBCL 62.66 65.33 2.67 1.250 10.31 0.269 0.26*
TRF 59.11 60.57 1.46 0.430 7.96 0.515 0.18
YSR 58.19 60.60 2.41 0.429 11.79 0.518 0.20*
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

Table 17 shows only no statistically significant difference in the
withdrawn/depressed syndrome scale for all three ASEBA assessments. Practical
significance was however found on the YSR with the 6.99 difference being found to
have an effect size of 0.48. Effect sizes for both the CBCL and the TRF failed to
meet the pre-established levels, and therefore are not considered to be practical
significance.

Table 17: Univariate Analysis of Variance: Withdrawn/Depressed

Experimental Control Difference F SDcntrl/post SIG(p) Effect(d)
CBCL 61.59 63.17 1.57 0.343 12.56 0.561 0.13
TRF 58.27 58.67 0.40 0.048 5.47 0.827 0.07
YSR 59.46 66.44 6.99 2.159 14.41 0.153 0.48*
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

Table 18 demonstrates a practically significant negative difference between
control and experimental groups on the social problems scale for the CBCL. This
result is interesting when compared to the statistically significant positive changes

57
that were found for both the TRF and the YSR. Results in table 18 indicate a
positive difference between the experimental and control adjust means of 3.39 for the
TRF and 3.73 for the YSR. Effect size was significant at 0.36 for the TRF and 0.41
for the YSR. There was also statistically significant results of p=0.065 for the TRF.

Table 18: Univariate Analysis of Variance: Social Problems

Experimental Control Difference F SDcntrl/post SIG(p) Effect(d)
CBCL 67.24 64.36 -2.88 1.865 9.41 0.178 -0.31*
TRF 63.52 66.91 3.39 3.569 9.37 0.065* 0.36*
YSR 59.54 63.27 3.73 1.559 9.17 0.222 0.41*
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

Table 19 represents the results for the syndrome scale for thought problems.
No statistical or practical significance was indicated on the CBCL or the TRF. The
difference of 5.22 on the YSR was both statistically and practically significant with
p=0.96 and d=0.56.

Table 19: Univariate Analysis of Variance: Thought Problems

Experimental Control Difference F SDcntrl/post SIG(p) Effect(d)
CBCL 63.40 64.62 1.22 0.226 9.17 6.370 0.13
TRF 59.35 58.75 -0.60 0.800 6.93 0.779 -0.09
YSR 56.64 61.86 5.22 2.968 9.36 0.096* 0.56*
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

58
Table 20 reflects a positive mean difference for attention problems on the
TRF. The difference between control and experimental groups on the TRF was 6.69
with a statistical significance of 0.005 and an effect size of 0.58. There was no
statistical or practical difference in the adjusted means for the CBCL or the YSR.

Table 20: Univariate Analysis of Variance: Attention Problems

Experimental Control Difference F SDcntrl/post SIG(p) Effect(d)
CBCL 64.25 63.12 -1.13 0.246 8.13 0.622 -0.14
TRF 60.31 67.00 6.69 8.924 11.45 0.005* 0.58*
YSR 59.83 60.05 0.22 0.005 8.13 0.944 0.03
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

Table 21 reflects positive differences in the adjusted mean scores of both e
the TRF and the YSR for rule breaking behaviors. The TRF results showed a 5.06
difference between the control and experimental group with a statistical significance
of 0.20 and an effect size of 0.48. Similar results were indicated for the YSR with an
adjusted mean difference of 6.12 and a statistical significance of 0.011 and an effect
size of 0.79.

Table 21: Univariate Analysis of Variance: Rule Breaking Behaviors

Experimental Control Difference F SDcntrl/post SIG(p) Effect(d)
CBCL 68.00 68.33 0.33 0.025 9.13 0.876 0.04
TRF 62.10 67.17 5.06 5.775 10.44 0.020* 0.48*
YSR 62.04 68.16 6.12 7.118 7.74 0.011* 0.79*
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

59
Table 22 reflects a positive difference in the adjusted mean score for
aggressive behavior on the TRF. These results were both statistically significant,
p=0.012 and practically significant with an effect size of 0.56. There were no
statistically significant differences found on the CBCL or the YSR for aggressive
behavior.

Table 22: Univariate Analysis of Variance: Aggressive Behavior

Experimental Control Difference F SDcntrl/post SIG(p) Effect(d)
CBCL 71.55 71.08 -0.47 0.026 10.91 0.872 -0.04
TRF 67.16 76.28 9.12 6.899 16.20 0.012* 0.56*
YSR 64.60 66.15 1.55 0.144 12.82 0.708 0.12
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

Table 23 summarizes results from the internalizing problems scale. The
difference between the control and experimental groups for the CBCL was 5.55 with
a statistical significance of 0.032 and an effect size of 0.49, indicating a practical
significance as well. The adjusted mean difference for the YSR was 6. 27, with an
effect size of 0.55. There were no statistically significant differences found for
internalizing problems for the TRF.

60
Table 23: Univariate Analysis of Variance: Internalizing problems

Experimental Control Difference F SDcntrl/post SIG(p) Effect(d)
CBCL 60.24 65.79 5.55 4.487 11.36 0.032* 0.49*
TRF 58.11 59.28 1.17 0.188 10.26 0.667 0.11
YSR 54.69 60.69 6.27 2.034 11.50 0.164 0.55*
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

Table 24 reflects statistically significant positive differences between the
control and experimental groups for the externalizing problems scale on the TRF and
positive differences with statistically significant effect sizes for the TRF and the
YSR. The TRF had a difference in adjusted means of 5.02 with a statistical
significance of 0.050 and an effect size of 0.43. The difference in adjusted means for
the YSR was 3.62 with an effect size of 0.32.

Table 24: Univariate Analysis of Variance: Externalizing Problems

Experimental Control Difference F SDcntrl/post SIG(p) Effect(d)
CBCL 69.68 68.90 -0.79 0.146 8.27 0.704 -0.10
TRF 65.76 70.79 5.02 4.041 11.69 0.050* 0.43*
YSR 59.66 63.28 3.62 0.480 11.37 0.494 0.32*
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

Table 25 reflects the results for the adjusted means for the total problems
scale. There wee no statistically significant differences found between control and
experimental groups on the CBCL. The difference in adjusted means for the TRF

61
was 3.68 and this difference was both statistically significant (p=0.126) and
practically significant (d=0.33). The difference in adjusted means for the YSR was
4.74 with an effect size of 0.41, meeting the requirements for practical significance.

Table 25: Univariate Analysis of Variance: Total Problems

Experimental Control Difference F SDcntrl/post SIG(p) Effect(d)
CBCL 67.51 68.77 1.26 0.488 7.78 0.488 0.16
TRF 64.00 67.68 3.68 2.436 11.00 0.126* 0.33*
YSR 57.93 63.67 4.74 0.925 11.68 0.344 0.41*
Note.*= d >.20 and p < .150

Summary of Findings
The results of the GSE assessment are fairly straightforward, the
experimental group demonstrated statistically and practically significant measures of
growth from pre to post test following the intervention. This growth was found to be
significant both in real growth and when compared to the control group.
Results from the CBCL assessments indicated no statistically or practically
significant positive changes from pre to post test on any of the syndrome scales.
Statistically significant differences in adjusted means of the experimental and control
groups on the CBCL assessments were found in the syndrome scale area of
internalizing problems. Syndrome scales that had statistically significant effect
sizes, establishing practical significance included anxious/depressed, social
problems, and internalizing problems.

62
Results from the TRF assessments indicated statistically significant positive
changes from pre to post test on the syndrome scale for internalizing problems.
Similarly practical significance for the pre/post test positive change was found for
syndrome scales of anxious/depressed, withdrawn/depressed attention problems, and
internalizing problems. Statistically and practically significant differences in adjusted
means of the experimental and control groups on the TRF assessments were found in
the syndrome scales of Social problems, attention problems, rule breaking behaviors,
aggressive behavior, externalizing problems and total problems.
Results from the YSR assessments indicated statistically significant positive
changes from pre to post test on the syndrome scale for anxious/depressed, social
problems, thought problems, internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and
total problems. Similarly practical significance for the pre/post test positive change
was found for syndrome scales of social problems, thought problems, internalizing
problems, externalizing problems, and total problems. Statistically significant
differences in adjusted means of the experimental and control groups on the YSR
assessments were found in the syndrome scales of thought problems and rule
breaking behaviors. Practically significant differences in adjusted means of the
experimental and control groups on the YSR assessments were found in the
syndrome scales of anxious/depressed, withdrawn/depressed, social problems,
thought problems, rule breaking behaviors, internalizing problems, externalizing
problems, and total problems.

63
Chapter Five
Summary, Discussion and Recommendations
Overview
The previous four chapters demonstrated the need to improve the outcomes
for children in foster care and or receiving residentially based therapeutic services.
These children experience a variety of problems including multiple placement
failures, difficulty in school, and deficits in many important life skill and educational
realms. The overriding purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the
Why Try Program in improving the performance of children receiving residentially
based services and attending a non-public school. The purpose of this chapter is to
examine and elaborate on the findings that were outlined in the previous chapter,
discuss the implications, and explore recommendations for the site studied, the
agency as a whole, and possible future studies.
Summary of Findings
This study was an examination of the impact of the Why Try Program for
children receiving residentially based services and attending a no-public school.
Specifically the study examined the pre and post test changes on the General Self-
Efficacy (GSE) scale and the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment
(ASEBA) scales, including the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), Teacher’s Report
Form (TRF), and the Youth Self-Report (YSR). Pre and post test score on the
aforementioned test were examined for both a control and experimental group

64
campuses of Mountain Valley School (MVS), a non-public school with four
campuses in California.
Participants in the study consisted of the students at two MVS campuses who
were both attending the non-public school, and receiving residentially based services
in a Valley Treatment Centers (VTC) therapeutic treatment facility. One campus
was designated as the control group and consisted of approximately 36 students
meeting the criteria. A second campus with approximately 42 students meeting the
criteria was designated as the experimental group. Students in the experimental
group participated in a series of weekly Why Try groups designed to help them learn
to set goals and practice the skills need to achieve their goals. The results were
positive as a whole. The data that will be discussed below, taken as a whole found
that the youth involved in the Why Try Program made positive strides and as a whole
were doing better then when they began the program.
Results will be examined in two phases and include both an examination of
pre to post test change of the students in the experimental group as well as a
comparison of the experimental group changes from pre to post test as compared to
the control group changes . Phase one will be an examination of the GSE results,
followed by a review of findings for each of the 10 syndrome scales that were
assessed through the ASEBA assessments in phase two.
The results of the GSE assessment indicated exceptionally strong evidence of
improvement in self-efficacy for the youth involved in the experimental group over
the six month period from pre to post test. Close examination of the pre to post test

65
change in means indicated statistically and practically significant positive changes in
the experimental group (Table 5). These changes were quite extraordinary in such a
short amount of time. Pintrich and Schunk (2002) defined self-efficacy as “one’s
perceived capabilities for learning or performing actions at designated levels”
(p.407). Keeping this definition in mind, the results of the study indicate that the
youth who participated in the Why Try Program now perceive themselves as being
more capable of learning and accomplishing task or actions. The children involved
in this study traditionally have difficulty accomplishing new tasks, and often use
self-worth protection defense mechanisms to avoid attempting new tasks. These
results indicate that these children may now view difficult challenges with a greater
level of optimism about their ability to accomplish the tasks they are challenged
with.
Results from the control group indicated no statistically or practically
significant growth in GSE scores. These results demonstrate just how significant the
change in mean score was for the experimental group. The control group actually
showed a decrease in perceived self-efficacy from pre to post, but this decrease was
not significant. Bandura (1997) explained that higher levels of self-efficacy relate to
high probability of engaging in tasks that promote skill development. Similarly,
Bandura (1997) also explained that low level of self-efficacy lead to the avoidance of
new task and skill development. Pintrich and Schunk (2002) pointed out that higher
levels of self-efficacy have a positive effect on a person’s level of persistence when
attempting to accomplish a task.

66
The second phase of the review of the results is that of the ASEBA
assessments. The ASEBA assessments include the CBCL, TRF, and the YSR.
These three ASEBA assessments measure a variety of factors from three specific
points of view. For this study the results for 10 of the syndrome scales were
examined from each of the different assessment forms. The 10 syndrome scales used
for this study were; Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn/Depressed, Social Problems,
Thought problems, Attention Problems, Rule Breaking Behavior, Aggressive
Behavior, Internalizing Problems, Externalizing Problems, and Total Problems. For
the purpose of this review the next section will examine the syndrome scales that
demonstrated statistically and or practically significant positive changes. The first
section will examine the results for pre to post test for the experimental group. The
second section is an analysis of the syndrome scales for the adjusted means for the
experimental group as compared to the control group.
Pre/Post Test Changes
Results from the TRF found statistically and practically significant positive
changes for the syndrome scale of internalizing problems. Practical significantly
positive changes were also found for the syndrome scales; anxious/depressed,
withdrawn/depressed, and attention problems. Positive results as reported by the
teacher of the students for these four syndrome scores is very good news as the
students in the study, as well as many students involved in special education,
struggle to be successful in school settings due to their persistent behavioral
problems (Zeltin & Weinberg, 2004). Reductions in anxiety, improved attention,

67
and reduced levels of depression therefore should lead to greater levels of success in
the classroom.
Results of the YSR indicated statistically significant positive changes from
pre to post test on the syndrome scale of anxious/depressed. Statistically and
practically significant positive changes were also found in the syndrome scales for;
social problems, thought problems, internalizing problems, externalizing problems,
and total problems.
Positive results in six areas are not only significant for the purpose of this
study, but can have a direct positive effect on the life of the children involved in the
study. Results that indicate such positive improvements for all three problem scales
demonstrate a tremendous achievement. As discussed in chapter one, youth in foster
care settings have experienced extreme levels of trauma, leading to a variety of
emotional and behavioral disorders (Christian, 2003). The manifestation of these
disorders often leads to the child viewing their lives as riddled with problems. For
the youth involved in this study, their perception that they have decreasing levels of
problems on multiple syndrome scale levels indicates encouraging results for their
futures.
There were no statistically or practically significant positive changes from
pre to post test on the CBCL assessments. Theses assessments were completed by
the person responsible to be the primary care giver to the youth while they were
receiving residentially based services. These assessments are typically done by the
primary care giver, traditionally the parent, but often the grandparent, foster parent,

68
or other important adult figure in the child’s life. While these results did not indicate
any positive change in the youth during the six months from pre to post test, there
were no major regressions either. There was a very slight negative change in the
area of rule breaking behavior, but overall the youth involved in the study essentially
maintained their levels in nine of the ten syndrome scales as viewed by the primary
care giver, via the CBCL assessment. These results, while on the surface may seem
inconsequential, may actually be a positive result. Many foster care children
experience a high level of instability, often leading to multiple placement changes.
For the youth involved in this study, reports of generally stable assessments of these
syndrome scales indicates a level of stability that ultimately can be viewed as
optimistic in nature.
Pre/Post Test Changes in Adjusted Means
An examination of the results from the ASEBA assessment pre to post test
scores as compared to the control group, via an analysis of the difference in adjusted
means indicated that there was statistically and practically significant growth in
several of the measured syndrome scales.
Statistically significant differences in adjusted means of the experimental and
control groups on the CBCL were found on the syndrome scale for internalizing
problems. Practically significant growth was found in the syndrome scales of
anxious/depressed, social problems and internalizing problems. Results for the TRF
indicated statistically and practically significant positive growth in the experimental
group in the syndrome scale areas of: social problems, attention problems, rule

69
breaking behaviors, aggressive behaviors, externalizing problems, and total
problems.
The results from the YSR found statistically significant growth in the
syndrome areas of thought problems and rule breaking behaviors. Practically
significant growth was found in all syndrome scales except attention problems and
aggressive behaviors.
Stepping back and examining the results in their totality, the results indicate
that the experimental group has had a profound increase in their perceived level of
self-efficacy. This result, without any other supporting data, would be a positive
result. Paired with the fact that in almost every area measured the youth involved
not only report higher levels of self-efficacy, they asses themselves as doing better in
almost every syndrome scale as measures by the YSR. There is a direct relationship
between the youth having a higher level of self-efficacy and there views about the
perceptions of how they are doing. Increased levels of self-efficacy lead to increased
attempts at accomplishing goals, taking on difficult or challenging tasks, and
working toward goals (Parish et al., 2001). Positive results from several of the
syndrome scales on the CBCL and the TRF indicate that the youth in the
experimental group has begun to demonstrate visible changes in their behaviors as
assessed by the adults they interact with. While these positive results were not as
overwhelming as the results of the YSR, they do indicate that change is occurring
and is possible. The results form the TRF were more positive then from the CBCL,
this result was not surprising as the Why Try Program teaches the importance of

70
setting goals and problem solving to accomplish the goals. For many youth the
process of growth begins first with making the decision, and having the self-efficacy
necessary, to set new goals and work toward them. The natural setting for the youth
to begin this process would be school. As noted in earlier chapters, many children in
the foster care system report a lack of school accomplishment as the largest barrier to
their success (Barth, 1990, Zeltin & Weinberg, 2004). The results of the ASEBA
assessments demonstrates that the reports from teachers show more positive
improvements than from the primary caregivers. At school the youth have a
structured environment in which goal setting and applying effort to a task is the
expectation and the study indicates that both the students and the teachers felt as
thought the students in the experimental group were making positive progress.
Results from the CBCL indicated less positive changes then those of the YSR and
the TRF, but indicated positive growth in several areas nonetheless.
Implications
The implications of the study, as described in the results above, indicate a
variety of positive changes for the youth involved in the study. The implications
clearly indicate that involving the youth receiving residential and attending a non-
public school in the Why Try Program, can have a positive effect on both their
perceived level of self-efficacy as well as improving performance on the ASEBA
syndrome scales. The positive results are strongest with the perceptions of the youth
themselves. This result is encouraging as traditionally children in the foster care
system have been found to have a poorer psychological well being then children who

71
have not been in the foster care system (Farruggia, Greenberger, Chen, &
Heckhausen, 2006).
The implications or the classroom setting are tremendous. Students in the
foster care system traditionally experience multiple difficulties in school (Barth,
1990, Zeltin & Weinberg, 2004, Weinberg, Zetlin, & Shea, 2001, Parish et al., 2001).
Any program designed to improve the student’s ability to perform better in school,
has positive implications. These implications are very encouraging for the students
involved in this study, but could have further reaching implications for students in
the special education settings who suffer from similar performance problems.
The implications for the living situation of the youth in the foster care system
are also encouraging. Unfortunately the experience of many youth in foster care is
multiple placement failures, leading to multiple school changes as well. Results
form this study demonstrate improvement in syndrome scales that often manifest
themselves in behaviors that contribute to placement failures. Improvement in the
areas found to show improvement, such as internalizing, externalizing, and total
problems should lead to an increased level of stability. In fact all of the youth that
were included in the results section of the study were present during the complete
series of Why Try groups. The fact that they stayed in a stable environment for
approximately six months from pre to post test can be viewed as a success in its own
right. It is important to note that the youth in the control group also experienced this
stability; however there was measurably significantly higher gains by the
experimental group.

72
When examining the overall implications of the results, the evidence
indicates that the youth involved in the Why Try Program have made positive gains
and that these gains may be attributed to the Why Try Program intervention.
Recommendations
Currently the use of the Why Try Program as a structured weekly group for
youth at VTC and MVS is not mandated at any location. Over the past few years it
has been used in a variety of different ways, with no consistent implementation plan
from site to site. Based on the results of this limited study it is recommended that
each site, at a minimum, incorporate the Why Try Program into the standard group
offerings either through the integrated day-treatment program at MVS or as a stand
alone group in VTC. This is based on the positive results of the study which was
designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention in this setting to improve
the practices being implemented to increase the success of the youth receiving
services in this organization. Further recommendations would be to implement the
program on a broader scale at all VTC and MVS locations as described above and to
continue to gather and assess the outcome data that is generated in order to
continually improve service outcomes.
Recommendations for Further Study
Based on the results of this present limited study designed to improve
outcomes for youth living in a VTC residential facility and attending a MVS non-
public school, it is recommend that a larger, more encompassing study be done with
multiple students from multiple special educations settings to see if the results from

73
this study would or would not be similar on a larger scale. It is further recommended
that a larger study with the capability of assessing outcomes over a longer period of
time be done to see if the effects of the Why Try Program would hold up
longitudinally. In order to make a more general assessment of the effectiveness of
the Why Try Program, outside of the VTC and MVS environment, the larger study
would require the tracking of multiple youth through a variety of settings. A study
such as this would go beyond the limited purpose of this present study and could
potentially produce a more accurate global assessment of the Why Try Program.
Limitations
As stated above the scope and purpose of this study was very limited. The
purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Why Try Program in a
very limited setting with a small sample that was not randomly selected or assigned.
The sole purpose was for program improvement in the setting described. Due to
these factors the validity of the study is very limited and cannot be generalized to
other settings. The youth involved in the study also represent a very small sample,
and therefore it is difficult to extrapolate the results to a larger population as small
differences have a greater effect on the mean scores of the entire group. In addition
ascribing a direct relationship between increased post test scores and the intervention
can be difficult due to the multitude of other factors that effect the youth during the
time of the intervention. Achenbach (1991) points out that other factors such as the
changes in age and maturity level of the child, rater bias, and test-retest attenuation
effect may account for improvements, not just the intervention. Attempts were made

74
to mitigate these effects, such as the assignment of a control group and the use of pre
and post test data, the application of statistical analysis, and tests for statistical and
practical significance; however it is not possible to account for all other factors.
Conclusion
The study has revealed that the use of the Why Try Program at VTC and
MVS has had a positive effect on the youth involved. The Why Try Program has
shown to be effective with this limited sample in this specific setting. As a result it
is recommended that the program continue and be expanded to include more students
at MVS campuses who are receiving residentially based services ay VTC. With
these results in mind it is also important to note that while the results were positive,
they only represent one program that may help improve the life of the children in the
study, it in no way should be considered as the magic answer to improving the lives
of these children, the staff at VTC and MVS should and need to continue to gather
data on interventions and continue to expand the possible interventions that can be
used with the hope that trough continued quality improvement and assessment, they
will have an opportunity to offer a multitude of interventions, with the goal of
finding something that works for each youth in need.

75
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrated Guide to the 1991 CBCL/4-18, YSR, and TRF
Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychology.

Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational Determinants of Risk-taking Behavior.
Psychological Review, 64, 359-372.

Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An Introduction to Motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-Efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
human behavior (4 ed., pp. 71-81). San Diego: Academic Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Barth, R. P. (1990). On Their Own the Experiences of Youth After Foster Care.
Child and Adolescent Social Work, 7(5), 419-440.

Bass, K. (2006). California Assembly Bill 2216.

Blake, C., Wang, W., Cartledge, G., & Gardner, R. (2000). Middle school students
with serious emotional disturbances serve as social skills trainers and
reinforcers for peers with SED. Behavioral Disorders, 25(Aug 2000), 280-
298.

Bloome, W. (1997). What happens to Foster kids: Educational Experiences of a
random sample of Foster Care Youth. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 14,
42-53.

Bushnell, B., & Card, K. (2003). Report on Longitudinal Effects of the Why Try
Program at Pleasant Grove High School (). Pleasant Grove, Utah: Spectrum
Consulting, LLC.

California Alliance for Children and Family Services (2006). Framework for a New
System of Residentially-Based Services in California -Executive Summary ().
Sacramento: California Alliance for Children and Family Services.

California Alliance of Children and Family Services (2004, January 16). Group
Home Fact Sheet (). Sacramento: California Alliance of Children and Family
Services.

76
Campbell, B. (1990). Multiple Intelligences Classroom. On the Beam, XI(1), 254-
261.

Chen, J. Q. (2004). Theory of Multiple Intelligences: Is it a Scientific Theory?
Teaches College Record, 106(1), 17-23.

Chen, K., & Bullock, L. (2004). Social skills intervention for students with
emotional/behavioral disorders aged six through 12 years: A combination of
a literature-based curriculum and telecommunications. Emotional &
Behavioral Difficulties, 9(4), 223-238.

Child Welfare League of America (2007). The Long Decline in Federal Support for
Abused and Neglected Children (). Washington D.C.: Child Welfare League
of America.

Christian, S. (2003, December). Educating Children in Foster Care (). Washington
D.C.: National Conference of State Legislatures Children's Policy Initiative a
Collaborative project on Children and Family Issues.

Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning Research into Results. A Guide to
Selecting the right Performance Solutions. Atlanta, Georgia: CEP Press.

Cook, R. (1991). A national evaluation of Title IV-E foster care independent living
programs for Youth: Phase 2 final report. (). Rockville, MD: Westat.

Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A., Havlicek, J., Perez, A., & Keller, T. (2007, December
12). Midwest Evaluation of Adult Functioning of Foster Youth: Outcomes at
Age 21 (). Chicago: Chapin Hill Center for Children at the University of
Chicago.

Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal Theory, Motivation, and School Achievement: An
Integrated Review. Annual Review Psychology, 51, 171-200.

Creswell (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. : .

Cross, C. T. (2004). Leaving No Child Behind. Political Education National Policy
Comes of Age, 126-143.

Dejong, P., & Hopwood, L. E. (1996). Outcome research on treatment conducted at
the Brief Family Therapy Center, 1992-1993. In S.D. Miller, M.A. Hubble, &
B.L.Duncan (Eds.), Handbook of solution focused brief therapy (pp. 272-
298). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

77
Eggett, G. D. (2003). An Intervention to Remediate Motivational Shortcomings.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University.

Farruggia, S. P., Greenberger, E., Chen, C., & Heckhausen, J. (2006). Percieved
Social Environment and Adolescents' Well eing and Adjustment: Comparing
a Foster Care Sample With a Matched sample. Journal of Yoth and
Adolecence, 35(3), 349-358.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New
York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple Intelligences Go to School: Educational
implications of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Educational
Researcher, 18(8), 4-10.

Gingerich, W. J., & Eisengart, M. A. (2000). Solution-Focused Brief Therapy: A
Review of the Outcome Research. Family Process, 39(4), 477-498.

Gingerich, W. J., & Eisengart, S. (2000). Solution-Focused Brief Therapy: a review
of outcome research. Family Process, 39(4), 477-498.

Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (n.d.). The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE).
doi:The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE)

Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1979). The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE).
Retrieved March 23, 2007, from http://http://userpage.fu-
berlin.de/~health/engscal.htm

Lafountain, R. M., & Garner, N. E. (1996). Solution-focused counseling groups: the
results are in. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 21(2), 128-143.

Larzelere, R. E., Daly, D. L., Davis , J. L., Chmelka , M. B., & Handwerk, M. L.
(2004). Outcome evaluation of girls and boys town's family home program.
Education & Treatment of Children, 27(2), 130-150.

Ledoux, J. E. (1996). The Emotional Brain: the Mysterious Underpinnings of
Emoitional Life. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Lee, M. Y. (1997). A study of solution focused brief family therapy: Outcomes and
issues. American Journal of Family Therapy, 25, 3-17.

78
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What Works in Schools. Translating Research into Action.
Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is Emotional Intelligence? In P. Salovey &
D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence:
educational Implications (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.

McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making Sense of Research. What's Good,
What's Not, and How to Tell the Difference. Thousand oaks, CA: Corwin
Press, Inc..

McMillan, C. J., & Tucker, J. (1999). The Status of Older Adolescents at Exit from
Out-of-Home Care. Child Welfare, 78(3), 339-359.

McNeal, R., Handwerk, M. L., Clinton, F. E., Roberts, M. C., Soper, S., Huefner, J.
C., et al. (2006). Hope as an Outcome Variable Among Youths in a
Residential Care Setting. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(3), 304-
311.

Moore, C. (2001). The Why Try Program Manual (1.1 ed.). Orem, Utah: Why Try
Inc.

Newsome, S. W. (2004). Solution-Focused Brief Therapy Group work with at-Risk
Junior High School Students: Enhancing the Bottom Line. Research on
Social Work Practice, 14, 336-343.

Pajares, F. (1995). Current Directions in Self-efficacy Research. In M. Maehr & P.R.
Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievment (pp. 1-49).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Parish, T., Dubois, J., Delano, C., Dixon, D., Webster, D., Berrick, J. D., et al.
(2001). Education of Foster Group Home Children, Whose Responsibility IS
It? (). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in Education. Theory, Research,
and Applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice
Hill.

79
Seagram, B. M. (1997). The efficacy of solution-focused therapy with young
offenders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, York University.

Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to solution in breif therapy. New York: W.W. Horton.

Smith, I. C. (2005). Solution-focused Brief Therapy with people with learning
disabilities: a case study. British Journal of learning Disabilities, 33(3), 102-
105.

Soto, N. (2006). California Senate Bill 1641.

Steinberg, D. (2004). California Assembly Bill 490.

US Department Of Health And Human Services (2006). The AFCARS Report,
Preliminary Estimates for FY 2005 (). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office. Retrieved from US Government Printing Office Web Site:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm

Weakland, J. H., Fisch, R., Watzlawick, P., & Bodin, A. M. (1974). Brief therapy:
Focused problem resolution. Family Process, 13, 141-168.

Weinberg, L. A., Zetlin, A. G., & Shea, N. M. (2001). Literature review on the
Educational Needs of Children Involved in Family and Juvenile Court
Proceedings (997449). Judicial Council of California, Center for Families,
Children and the Courts, San Francisco, CA.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Wertheimer, R. (2002). Youth who age out of foster care: Troubled lives, trouble
prospects. Trends in Child research Brief, (59).

The Why Try Organization. (n.d.). The Why Try Program [Brochure]. Salt Lake
City, Utah: Author. Retrieved April 20, 2007, from The Why Try
Organization Web Site: http://www.whytry.org/product_catalog.pdf

Wirt, F. W., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The Political Dynamics of American Education
(3rd ed.). Richmond, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

Zeltin, A. G., & Weinberg, L. A. (2004). Understanding the Plight of Foster Youth
and Improving their Educational Opportunities. Child Abuse and Neglect,
28(9), 917-923.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of the Why Try Program with children living in group homes, or Licensed Children's Institutions (LCI), receiving residentially based services who are also attending a Non-Public School (NPS). This study was a quasi-experimental study using a pre-post independent group design with a nonequivalent control group. A 16 week series of Why Try Program groups was administered to the experimental group, and pre/post test results of the experimental and control groups were compared.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of algebra students

PDF

Examining the effectiveness of the intervention programs for English learners at MFC intermediate school

PDF

An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Alternatives for achievement: a mathematics intervention for English learners

PDF

The effect of a language arts intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

A formative evaluation of the student support services TRIO program for low income and first generation college bound students self-efficacy at Butte-Glenn Community College District

PDF

The impact of professional learning communities and block scheduling on English language learner students at Oak Point Middle School

PDF

The effectiveness of a district's social skills curriculum for students with disabilities

PDF

The effects of peer helping on participants' perceptions of school climate, school connectedness, and school violence

PDF

Special education outsourcing: district privatization of therapeutic day schools for students with severe emotional disabilities

PDF

The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within an elementary school in a centrally managed school district: a case study

PDF

The Filipino family initiative: preliminary effects of an evidence-based parenting intervention offered in churches on parent and child outcomes

PDF

Sustaining arts programs in public education: a case study examining how leadership and funding decisions support and sustain the visual and performing arts program at a public high school in Cal...

PDF

The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within a site-based managed elementary school: a case study

PDF

Mandated privatization through program improvement: a case study of the relationship between Action Learning Systems and the Buena Park School District

PDF

Nontraditional outperforming K-12 urban schools: a case study of the implementation of promising programs and practices, leadership and cultural norms in a project-based curriculum college prepar...

PDF

The comparison of hybrid intervention and traditional intervention in increasing student achievement in middle school mathematics

PDF

The effect of traditional method of training on learning transfer, motivation, self-efficacy, and performance orientation in comparison to evidence-based training in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

PDF

The effects of campus friendships and perceptions of racial climates on the sense of belonging among Arab and Muslim community college students

PDF

The practice and effects of a school district's retention policies

Asset Metadata

Creator Baker, David (author)

Core Title Examining the effectiveness of the Why Try Program for children receiving residentially based services and attending a non-public school

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/09/2008

Defense Date 06/18/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag group homes,LCI,non-public school,NPS,OAI-PMH Harvest,SED,severly emotionaly disturbed,why try

Place Name California (states), educational facilities: Mountain Valley School (geographic subject)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hocevar, Dennis (committee chair), Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee member), Zimmer, John W. (committee member)

Creator Email bakers19@sbcglobal.net,dbaker@victor.org

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1589

Unique identifier UC1404779

Identifier etd-Baker-2384 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-105937 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1589 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Baker-2384.pdf

Dmrecord 105937

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Baker, David

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu