Peer Coach Training for disruptive youth

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

PEER COACH TRAINING FOR DISRUPTIVE YOUTH

by

Katharine Galbraith

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC DORNSIFE SCHOOL OF LETTERS, ARTS, AND SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(PSYCHOLOGY)
August 2020

Copyright 2020 Katharine Galbraith

ii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii
Background .................................................................................................................................... 1
Method ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Participants and Recruitment ................................................................................................................ 5
Procedures ................................................................................................................................................ 6
PCT Curriculum.................................................................................................................................... 10
Measures................................................................................................................................................. 12
Analyses .................................................................................................................................................. 14
Results........................................................................................................................................... 16
Demographics ........................................................................................................................................ 16
Teacher Daily Behavior Tracking........................................................................................................ 16
Teacher Assessment Data ..................................................................................................................... 21
Youth Assessment Data......................................................................................................................... 23
Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 25
Limitations and Future Directions ...................................................................................................... 29
References .................................................................................................................................... 33
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 43
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 70

iii

Abstract
In California schools, disruptive behavior is by far the primary reason for disciplinary
referrals, including suspensions and expulsions. School-based interventions targeting disruptive
behavior usually position struggling youth as treatment recipients and neglect the psychosocial
benefits of helping others (e.g., Eskreis-Winkler, Fishbach, & Duckworth, 2018). In this study, we
evaluate the feasibility and preliminary impact of Peer Coach Training (PCT), a novel, school-
based intervention for youth referred for disruptive behavior. PCT takes a counterintuitive
approach to remediating disruptive behavior that deemphasizes the youth’s existing problems and
focuses instead on training youth to help their peers. We used a multiple baseline design and pre-
post design to evaluate the preliminary effects of PCT on two cohorts of disruptive youth (N=9)
in an urban, middle school in Lynwood, CA. Teachers tracked each youth’s behavior on a daily
basis for several days prior to the start of the intervention until a week post-intervention. Youth
and teachers were also asked to complete assessments at baseline, the first day of the intervention
(pre-treatment), and post-treatment. TAU-U analyses of teachers’ daily tracking behavior
indicated no significant changes in disruptive behavior or prosocial behavior over the course of
PCT, although several methodological challenges (e.g., missing tracking data due to student and
teacher absence, failure to report by teachers) qualify this finding. Friedman’s ANOVAs of the
youth assessment data indicated significant reductions in youth self-report of externalizing
problems, conduct problems, attention problems, and aggressive behavior from baseline to
posttreatment; however, there were no significant changes in problem behaviors based on teacher
assessment data. Results from this pilot evaluation indicate that PCT shows promise in reducing
youth problem behavior, but additional data and resources are needed to provide stronger evidence
for treatment efficacy.

1

Background

Disruptive behavior is one of the most common safety and disciplinary concerns in
schools in the United States (Robers, Kemp, & Truman, 2013). In U.S. public schools, disruptive
behavior (e.g., noncompliance, fighting) is the primary reason for disciplinary referrals,
including suspension and expulsion (Gregory & Weinstein, 2008; Mendez & Knopf, 2003).
Disruptive behavior problems in childhood are associated with a range of adverse
outcomes through adolescence, young adulthood, and beyond (Dishion & Patterson, 2006).
Disruptive behavior is linked to poor academic achievement, association with deviant peers, and
disciplinary referrals at school (McEvoy & Welker, 2000; Reinke et al., 2008). Furthermore,
youth with disruptive behavior problems are at heightened risk of school failure or dropout,
which in turn is associated with higher rates of unemployment, as well as a greater likelihood of
committing crimes and serving time in prison (Colman et al., 2009; Loeber et al., 2009; Vitaro et
al., 2005). As disruptive behavior in childhood is predictive of negative outcomes throughout the
life course, efforts to reduce or eliminate disruptive behavior could offset this pernicious life
trajectory. As such, the development and evaluation of interventions that effectively reduce
disruptive behavior in school settings has broader implications for children struggling with
disruptive behavior problems beyond the present; intervention programs could potentially help
shape more favorable life outcomes for these youth in the long term.
The negative impacts are not limited to youth who engage in disruptive behavior.
Disruptive behavior in class can interfere with other students’ ability to learn and/or engage with
academic curricula (Figlio, 2007; Lavy et al., 2011). It can also distract teachers from providing
optimal instruction to their students, as addressing disruptive behavior usually means time and
attention taken away from teaching (Walker et al., 2003) – thereby compounding existing

2

challenges with learning and engagement for students already distracted by the peer’s disruptive
behaviors. As such, reducing disruptive behavior in schools has implications beyond the
disruptive student; it may also lead to improved academic outcomes for every student in the
classroom, as it would mean less distraction and more time and attention left to teaching and
learning.
Early adolescence is a particularly salient developmental period to address disruptive
behavior in the classroom. Noncompliance and aggressive behaviors are strongly associated with
peer rejection in elementary school (Sturaro et al., 2011) but are often correlated with higher
social status in middle school (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998; de Bruyn, & Cillessen, 2006). This
may suggest a shift in social perceptions of disruptive behavior during this developmental period,
as disruptive behavior is associated with lower social status in the elementary school years, but
higher social status during the middle school years.
Schools are optimal settings for delivering mental health services to disruptive middle
schoolers. Estimates indicate that approximately two thirds of youth receiving mental health care
obtain these services in school settings (NASP, 2016). Indeed, making interventions available in
schools, where youth already spend the majority of their waking hours, can help address barriers
to treatment (e.g., lack of transportation, financial) that often prevent youth from receiving
services they need (Atkins et al., 2017). Therefore, continued development and evaluation of
school-based services that can effectively reduce disruptive behavior in middle school youth is a
critical step in both improving middle school learning environments and in optimizing access to
mental health care for youth that struggle with disruptive behavior. In sum, providing services to
address the disruptive behavior among middle school youth in particular, at the setting in which
they occur, may be an effective way to offset the trajectory of antisocial behavior.

3

Effective school-based interventions for disruptive behavior exist but they are often time
and resource intensive, and on average, demonstrate significant, but small effects (Wilson et al.,
2003; Wilson & Lipsey, 2007; Eyberg et al., 2008; Durlak et al., 2011; Barnes et al., 2014;
Eiraldi et al., 2016). They also are limited in that they position youth as treatment recipients, but
neglect the psychosocial benefits that result from helping others – i.e., none of these
interventions explicitly position youth as “helpers,” or otherwise competent, knowledgeable
individuals that have the potential to create positive change (Wilson et al., 2003; Wilson &
Lipsey, 2007; Eyberg et al., 2008; Barnes et al., 2014; Eiraldi et al., 2016). Additionally, meta-
analytic research suggests that interventions are often ineffective when implemented in low-
income, urban settings (Farahmand et al., 2011), perhaps because scant resources and other
challenges and stressors unique to low-income populations can impede effective implementation
(Hodgkinson et al., 2017). As such, existing research suggests a need for increased attention to
the development and evaluation of more positive, feasible, and cost-effective interventions that
are easy to implement in low-income urban settings.
In this study, we piloted an innovative, brief, strengths-based intervention to remediate
disruptive behavior in middle school contexts. This intervention, called Peer Coach Training
(PCT; Huey & Galbraith, 2019), deemphasizes the youth’s existing problems and focuses instead
on training youth to act as “coaches” to help their peers engage in prosocial behaviors. PCT is
modeled on Ross and McKay’s (1976) Peer Therapist program, which trained delinquent girls to
act as “peer therapists,” and was dramatically more effective than alternative interventions at
reducing recidivism. Although their findings suggest that a “peer helper” framework may prove
effective in reducing antisocial behavior, this approach has not been tested with disruptive, at-
risk youth in urban middle school settings. While the concept of PCT was modeled on the Peer

4

Therapist program, the content of PCT was adapted from a variety of sources focused on peer
mentoring (e.g., DeMarco, 1993), social skills training (e.g., Jackson et al., 1983), and behavior
modification (e.g., Axelrod & Hall; 1999; Azrin & Besalel, 1999; Kazdin, 2001).
We anticipated that PCT would prove effective for several reasons. The “helper therapy
principle” articulated by Reissman (1965) suggests that “helpers” that assist “helpees” in
changing behavior or achieving a desired outcome often show substantial improvements in their
own behavior. In fact, Reismann suggested that “helpers” often benefit more from some
interventions compared to intervention recipients. He posited that serving as a “role model” and
acquiring the skills needed to be effective in the “helper” role increases the helper’s sense of
purpose and confidence in their capabilities (Gartner & Reissman, 1977; Reismann, 1965).
Supporting this perspective, experimental work in recent years shows the motivational benefits
of helping others (Aknin et al., 2010; Dunn et al., 2008; Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2018; Field et al.,
1998; Lyubomirsky, 2007). For example, a recent study conducted by Eskreis-Winkler et al.
(2018) found that individuals randomized to be advice “givers” reported higher levels of
motivation, prosocial behavior and improved overall well-being compared with individuals
assigned to be advice “receivers.” These findings were consistent across different advice
categories (e.g., financial, interpersonal, health, work) and age groups (middle school students
and adults). The authors hypothesized that these results were in part due to larger gains in
confidence among advice givers compared with advice receivers post-intervention.
Since PCT involves training youth to be “helpers” and “advice-givers,” we anticipated
that, as per the “helper therapy principle,” they would also show marked reductions in disruptive
behavior as a result of encouraging their peers to reduce disruptive behaviors. We hypothesized
that by taking on the role as a “helper” to their disruptive peers, which involves skill-acquisition

5

in positive reinforcement, constructive feedback, and active listening, they would internalize a
“prosocial” identity that is incongruous with disruptive behavior, and would thus engage in fewer
negative and more positive behaviors that match their “peer coach” identity.
In this study, we aimed to test the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of PCT by
using a multiple baseline group design and a pre-post design with assessments at baseline (i.e.,
time of enrollment), pretreatment (i.e., several days after the behavior tracking began, on the first
day of treatment, and posttreatment. We predicted that youth who received PCT would
demonstrate fewer disruptive behaviors and more prosocial behaviors in class over time based on
daily behavior tracking data provided by teachers, and that youth would demonstrate decreases in
externalizing behavior more broadly according to self and teacher assessments.
Method
Participants and Recruitment

To evaluate the preliminary effects of PCT in reducing disruptive behavior and increasing
prosocial behavior, we recruited 9 7th and 8th grade students from Lynwood Middle School
(LMS), which is located in a low-income, urban setting in Los Angeles County. Approximately
96% of LMS students identify as Hispanic, and 4% as African American.
The Assistant Principal at LMS referred youth with disruptive behavior problems to
participate in PCT. Specifically, the Assistant Principal was asked to refer students who
exhibited the most extreme (either in quantity or type) disruptive behavior in the classroom. To
be officially eligible for the study, youth must have received at least one disciplinary referral for
disruptive behavior between the first day of school and recruitment, which began approximately
one month into the semester. Youth who were unable to speak or understand English proficiently
were ineligible, as we only had the capacity to lead the intervention in English.

6

Procedures

All eligible youth referred by the Assistant Principal received a take-home consent form
that explained the study and expectations for participation. The author was available to answer
questions from the youth or English-speaking caregivers. A Spanish-speaking research assistant
(RA) and a collaborating graduate student were available by phone to answer questions from
Spanish-speaking caregivers.
After the Assistant Principal received signed consent forms from the 9 youth, three RAs
(including the study author) met with these youth during the last class period of school to
complete the assent and first baseline assessment. During the assent process, youth provided
names of each of their teachers and subjects taught, and gave permission for investigators to
contact their teachers for behavior ratings.
From each student’s list of teachers, one teacher was randomly selected and contacted to
complete youth assessments. Each teacher was first sent an email with an information sheet
describing the nature of the PCT program and was asked if they would like to participate by
providing data on the student’s behavior. If the teacher did not respond after 24 hours, the study
author would visit LMS to explain the study and request their involvement. If no contact was
made after 48 hours (via e-mail, phone call, and school visit) or the teacher declined before that
time, another teacher was randomly selected from the remaining classroom-based teachers on the
student’s list (and contacted in the same fashion just described) until we were able to find a
teacher that agreed to take part in the study. After agreeing to participate, teachers completed
consent forms and a baseline assessment, and they began to track the youth’s behavior regularly
by completing brief, daily behavior report forms.

7

We assessed the impact of PCT by using a multiple baseline group design (Kazdin,
1982). In this type of design, intervention initiation is staggered across groups – i.e., the
intervention starts at different times for each group. In multiple baseline designs, a stable
baseline of the behavior of interest is typically established before implementing the intervention.
Ideally, data collection for all groups (or each participant) starts at the same time. First, a stable
baseline level of the behavior of interest (in this study, disruptive behavior) is established (with a
minimum of three data points) for participants assigned to group one. Then, group one starts the
intervention. Data collection continues for the first group, and the second group still in the
“baseline” phase. After the intervention has been implemented for the first group, a stable
baseline level of behavior is established for the second group, which then begins the intervention.
If each group’s behavior changes after (and only after) the intervention has been implemented, it
provides evidence that changes are due to treatment rather than to maturation or other extraneous
factors (Kazdin, 1982).
Two groups received PCT, with 4-5 participants in each group. Youth were assigned to
each group by grade level (i.e., 7th graders in one group, 8th graders in another group) to
minimize contamination across groups. Based on the Assistant Principal’s recommendation, the
7th grade cohort (n=5 youth) was the first the receive the intervention, followed a week later by
the 8th grade cohort (n=4 youth).
We collected data from teachers on youth behavior to guide the timing of the
implementation of PCT for each group (i.e., to determine that a steady baseline level of behavior
had been established prior to starting the intervention). Data was collected from teachers on a
daily basis through Expimetrics, a free Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) mobile
application (app) commonly used for research purposes (Expimetrics, 2015). Brief, 1-2 minute

8

surveys were sent to teachers via an Expimetrics “app notification” that arrived immediately
after they finished class with the youth participating in PCT. Teachers were encouraged to tally
behaviors over the course of class (if it was feasible to do so) and to complete the survey as soon
as possible after class ended in order to maximize validity and reliability. Additionally,
Expimetrics sent follow-up reminder notifications to teachers who did not complete the survey
by the end of the school day to help maximize survey completion rates. Data collected through
Expimetrics was available to the research team in real time. As such, the study author consulted
with an expert in behavior analysis and multiple baseline design to review the aggregate data
(see Figure 1 below for more details) on a regular basis.
Figure 1
Predicted Multiple Baseline Study Design for PCT Intervention

0
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
Disuptive Behavior
Day
PCT Group 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
Disruptive Behavior
Day
PCT Group 2
Baseline
Baseline
Pre-tx
Pre-tx
Post-tx
Post-tx

9

Due to logistical issues (e.g., youth and room availability), we were unable to start group
1 immediately after a stable baseline had been established, and instead had to start group on a set
date approximately one week (6 school days post baseline assessment) after we had consistent
data from all teachers. Similarly, we started the second (8th grade) group exactly one week after
the first group started (12 school days post baseline assessment), due to scheduling requirements
and participant and classroom availability.
After completing the baseline assessment, and immediately before each PCT group
began, all youth and teachers were asked to complete pre-treatment assessments to control for
any changes that may have occurred as a result of the behavior tracking (i.e., changes in behavior
after baseline but before the start of PCT).
Group sessions for the first PCT cohort were co-facilitated by the study author and a
licensed psychologist, whereas sessions for the second cohort were cofacilitated by the study
author and another graduate student. PCT sessions were held weekly after school over five
weeks. The first session was a lengthier orientation session lasting approximately three hours.
The subsequent four sessions were approximately one hour each. All sessions were guided by an
intervention manual that evolved over the course of the evaluation (Huey & Galbraith, 2020).
Youth and teachers were asked to complete a post-treatment assessment approximately
one week after PCT ended. During the final PCT session, youth were instructed to practice all
the peer coaching skills they had learned over the previous weeks on their friends, write about
their experience on a worksheet, and turn in this worksheet to one of the group facilitators
approximately one week following the intervention. As such, we assessed students exactly one
week following the intervention, rather than immediately after the intervention ended, in order to
capture any changes in behavior that may have occurred from completing this assignment.

10

Similarly, we asked teachers to keep tracking their students’ behavior via Expimetrics during the
one week following termination.
All participants received $10 for each assessment they completed. Teachers also received
$10 for each week of daily behavior tracking they completed.
PCT Curriculum

The concept of PCT is based on Ross and McKay’s (1976) Peer Therapist Training
program (PTT), an intervention offered to adolescent females in a juvenile detention setting.
Like PTT, PCT is a strengths-based approach that avoids emphasis on the youth’s own problem
behavior and instead focuses on their potential to help their peers improve their behaviors.
Throughout PCT, youth are encouraged to think of themselves as leaders with the ability to
coach their peers to act in more prosocial, and fewer disruptive, behaviors. While the concept of
PCT is based on PTT, the content of the program is largely derived from a myriad of behavior
change approaches, including behavior modification strategies (Axelrod & Hall, 1991; Azrin &
Besalel-Azrin, 1999; Kazdin, 2001), social skills training (Jackson, et al., 1983) and peer
mentoring interventions (Demarco, 1993).
The first three sessions of the program were each dedicated to teaching the youth a new
skill: the introductory session focused on positive reinforcement, the second focused on critical
feedback, and the third focused on active listening. In the final two sessions the youth were
reintroduced to the concept of being a “peer coach” by being asked to integrate the skills learned
in the first three sessions, and to practice using these skills in and out of the session. To minimize
didactics and maximize interactivity, rather than simply ask the youth to describe how to give
peers positive reinforcement, constructive feedback, and be an active listener, we primarily
assessed comprehension by how well youth were able to act out these examples.

11

Although the session goals and content were identical for both cohorts, we made various
adjustments to program structure throughout the intervention to optimize youth engagement,
most of which were based on experiences the facilitators had conducting the cohort one sessions.
Throughout session one, especially during the didactic portions, youth from cohort one were
quite disengaged and easily distracted (e.g., playing on their phones during the session, making
inappropriate comments about other group members, getting in and out of their seats, climbing
on furniture). Thus, after that initial session, we instituted a set of “group rules” for all
subsequent sessions to which the facilitators and participants could refer to curb future
disruptions. We also minimized the didactic portion of curriculum and increased the amount of
interactive role play. Additionally, during the first session, several youth wanted to help
videotape the skits, and asked if they could share clips of the skits with their friends. In response,
we added an extensive videotaping component to the curriculum, which involved having youth
record each other perform the skits in each sessions. At the end of the program, each participant
was given a short video that compiled the skits their group acted out throughout the first four
sessions. Each participant was given a digital copy of the video to have and share with family
and friends as they wished. The purpose of these two adjustments was to increase youth
participation during session, and to address the youth’s requests to potentially share what they
were doing with others outside of the program (rather than “sharing” via social media). Finally, it
was decided that to maximize opportunities for “practice” as peer coaches outside of group,
youth were given between-group assignments to complete (which were referred to as “tasks”
rather than “homework” to minimize negative connotations associated with homework); also,
group-level contingencies (e.g. movie tickets, soda) were given if the majority of group members
returned their completed task sheets. In sum, although the content of session one (and subsequent

12

sessions) was similar for both cohorts, the intervention developers drastically adjusted the
structure of each session after cohort one’s first session to better facilitate youth engagement. For
additional details on the PCT curriculum, see Appendix A.
Measures

Demographics
Youth. At baseline, we collected youth demographics data, including information on
race, ethnicity, gender, age, primary language spoken at home, and gang membership. Gang
membership was assessed using self-report items about lifetime and current membership adapted
from Esbensen’s Gang Involvement scale (Esbensen et al., 2001).
Teachers. At baseline, we collected teacher demographics data, including information on
race, ethnicity, gender, age, education level, and years teaching. Teachers of enrolled youth who
provided instruction in a traditional classroom setting were eligible to participate.
Daily Behavior Tracking
Daily behavior tracking was used to establish whether PCT led to changes in disruptive
behavior; the tracking data is distinct from the data we collected at each assessment point. Daily
tracking was collected through Expimetrics, starting from study enrollment until one week after
completing the intervention. Teachers were asked to keep a tally of the number of disruptive
behaviors and prosocial behaviors the youth engaged in during class, and then input that data
through Expimetrics at the end of class. Specific examples of what behavior qualified as
“disruptive” and “prosocial” were provided on the daily report form to maximize reliability.
Disruptive Behavior Disorders Rating Scale
Teachers completed the Disruptive Behavior Disorders Rating Scale (DBDRS; Pelham et
al., 1992), during the baseline, pretreatment, and posttreatment assessments. The 45 item

13

DBDRS assesses for disruptive behavior disorders symptoms and takes approximately 10
minutes to complete. Respondents are asked to rate each item based on what best describes the
youth’s behavior over the past 6 months on a four-point likert scale (from 0 “Not at All” to 3
“Very Much”). It is a well-validated and reliable assessment tool used across diverse youth
populations (Erford, 1997; Pelham et al., 1992; Pelletier et al., 2006). The DBDRS has three
scales – the Oppositional Defiant and Conduct Disorder (OD/CD), Inattention, and Impulsivity
symptoms scales. Internal consistency ratings are 0.95, 0.75, and 0.96, respectively (Pelham et
al., 1992).
Teacher ’s Report Form
Teachers completed the Teacher's Report Form of the Child Behavior Checklist (TRF;
Achenbach, 1991) at baseline, pretreatment, and posttreatment. The TRF consists of 118 items
and takes approximately 10-20 minutes to complete. Items on the TRF ask about a child’s
problem behaviors over the most recent two months; teachers provide ratings of each item with
“not true” (0), “somewhat true” (1) or “always or often true” (2).
Youth Self-Report
Youth completed the Youth Self-Report (YSR; Achenbach, 1991) at baseline,
pretreatment, and posttreatment. The YSR has 102 items for which youth provide ratings of “not
true” (0), “somewhat true” (1) or “always or often true” (2) about their own problem behaviors
over the most recent six months, and takes approximately 20 minutes to complete.
The TRF and YSR are well-validated assessment tools that have high reliability, criterion
validity, discriminant validity, and convergent validity across a diverse range of populations
(Achenbach, 2019; Raines & Crumpton, 2017). Each measure produces syndrome scales, DSM-
oriented scales, broadband scales, and a total problems scale, with internal consistencies ranging

14

from α = .55-.95 (Achenbach, 2014). The eight syndrome scales include the anxious/depressed,
withdrawn/depressed, somatic complaints, social problems, thought problems, attention
problems, rule breaking behavior, and aggressive behavior scales. The six DSM-5 oriented scales
include of the depressive problems, anxiety problems, somatic problems, attention
deficit/hyperactivity problems, oppositional defiant problems, and conduct problems scales. The
two broadband scales include the internalizing problems (e.g. anxious/depressed,
withdrawn/depressed, and somatic symptoms syndrome scales) and externalizing problems
scales (e.g. aggressive behavior and rule breaking behavior syndrome scales). Finally, the total
problems scale includes items from all of the syndrome scales. All scale scores are normed based
on nationally representative samples and are displayed in relation to T scores and percentiles for
normative samples. All scale scores fall into three categories: the normal range, the borderline
clinical range, and the clinical range. T scores below 65 are within the normal range, T scores
between 65-70 fall within the borderline range, and scores 70 or higher fall in the clinical range
(Achenbach, 1991).
Analyses

Daily Tracking Data
We used both visual inspection and TAU-U tests to analyze changes in the number of
daily disruptive behaviors from baseline through the intervention phase for each PCT group.
Visual inspection is commonly used in multiple baseline designs and involves making judgments
about the consistency and magnitude of intervention effects through visual examination of
graphed data (Kazdin, 2018). It requires the application of four systematic evaluation criteria:
changes in means across phases, changes in slope or trend across phases, shift in level across
phases (i.e., a break or a discontinuity of performance at the end of baseline and the beginning of

15

treatment), and latency of change (i.e., how quickly performance changes after the start of the
intervention phase; short or no latency provides stronger evidence for intervention effects).
Changes in these four areas often accompany one another, but they can also occur alone or in
combination; meeting all four criteria provides the strongest evidence for intervention effects
(Kazdin, 2018).
We used TAU-U tests to analyze changes in the number of daily disruptive behaviors
throughout the baseline and treatment phases in each PCT group; TAU-U tests were developed
specifically to evaluate differences between baseline and treatment phases for single-case (or
single-group), multiple baseline designs, by examining the proportion of nonoverlapping data
between baseline versus treatment while controlling for baseline trends (Parker et al., 2011). A
TAU-U effect size was calculated for changes in the number of disruptive behaviors for each
group, in addition to an overall weighted average effect size combining data from both groups.
TAU-U was calculated using the TAU-U calculator available online (Vannest et al., 2016).
Assessment Data
We used Friedman’s one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) by ranks to examine
changes in disruptive behavior (DBDRS scores), as well as changes in problem behaviors more
broadly (ASEBA scores) across the three assessment timepoints (baseline, pretreatment, and
posttreatment). A Friedman’s ANOVA is a nonparametric statistical test used to evaluate
differences between groups; it is an extension of the sign test and involves ranking each row of
data (Friedman, 1937). It is often used with small sample sizes (as the data is less likely to be
normally distributed) and repeated measures designs (Zimmerman & Zumbo, 1993). Effect sizes
for Friedman’s ANOVA can be calculated using Kendall’s W tests (Friedman, 1940; Legendere,

16

2012). Kendall’s W values range from 0 to 1, and the effect size categorizations are as follows:
small effect (0.1), moderate effect (0.3), and small effect (0.5 and above; Legendere, 2012).
Results
Demographics

Youth
Of the 9 youth participants, 77.8% were male, and the average age was 12.4 years
(SD=0.5). The majority identified as Latinx (77.8%), and 22.2% identified as Black/African
American. Over half (55.5%) spoke English as a second language, 56% had been suspended at
least once, 33.3% had a history of gang membership, and 22.2% identified as current gang
members.
Teachers
Teachers of enrolled youth who provided instruction in a traditional classroom setting
were eligible to participate. We excluded physical education teachers in order to maintain
consistency (i.e., that each student’s behavior was evaluated by teachers in similar settings) in
measurement of disruptive and prosocial behaviors. Of the teacher respondents, 62.5% were
male, and the average age was 42.13 years (SD=13.98), with an age range of 22-71 years.
Approximately 25% of teachers identified as Caucasian, 25% as Black/African American, 50%
as Latinx (specifically, Mexican), and 12.5% as Native American (note that percentages do not
add up to 100%, as one teacher identified as half Native American and half Latinx). On average,
teachers had 12.04 years of teaching experience (SD=9.03), with a range from 0.5-24 years.
Teacher Daily Behavior Tracking

Visual Inspection

17

Visual inspection of changes in disruptive and prosocial behavior in each group indicated
that there was no significant change in behavior as a result of the intervention. In terms of the
four visual inspection criteria (changes in means across phases, changes in slope or trend across
phases, shift in level across phases, and latency of change), the data did not display any signs of
change in behavior due to the intervention. With respect to changes in means across phases,
neither group showed substantial changes in mean disruptive behaviors nor prosocial behaviors
between the preintervention and intervention phases. There was also no noticeable change in
slope or trend across phases, nor changes in level of disruptive or prosocial behavior across
phases for either group. If anything, the slope or trend of disruptive behavior appeared to
increase after the intervention was implemented for group 1, and appeared to stay about the same
after PCT began for group 2 (see Figures 2 and 3, respectively). With respect to prosocial
behavior, it seemed to only slightly increase after the intervention for group 1, and slightly
decrease after the intervention was implemented for group 2 (see Figures 4 and 5, respectively).
Finally, in terms of latency of change, there was no immediate, stable (i.e., lasting more than 1-2
data points) change in daily levels of disruptive behavior nor prosocial behavior immediately
after the intervention was implemented in both groups. All of the aforementioned visual
observations suggest that problem behaviors slightly increased among youth after PCT started.
See Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 for graphs of the average rates of disruptive and prosocial behavior
before and after PCT was implemented for groups 1 and 2.

18

Figure 2
Average Rates of Teacher-Reported Youth Disruptive Behavior for Group 1
Note. Illustrates the average rates of disruptive behaviors per class per student before, during,
and after the intervention for Group 1.
Figure 3
Average Rates of Teacher-Reported Youth Prosocial Behavior for Group 1
Note. Illustrates the average rates of prosocial behaviors per class per student before, during,
and after the intervention for Group 1.

19

Figure 4
Average Rates of Teacher-Reported Youth Disruptive Behavior for Group 2

Note. Illustrates the average rates of disruptive behaviors per class per student before, during,
and after the intervention for Group 2.

20

Figure 5
Average Rates of Teacher-Reported Youth Prosocial Behavior for Group 2

Note. Illustrates the average rates of prosocial behaviors per class per student before, during,
and after the intervention for Group 2.
TAU-U Analyses
TAU-U analyses of the daily behavior tracking data also suggest that the intervention did
not have any effect on youth behavior over the 5-6 weeks teachers reported on their behavior.
Analyses of rates of disruptive and prosocial behavior before and after the PCT program for each
group were not significant. Additionally, analyses of the daily tracking data from both groups
combined were not significant. Furthermore, the effect size data from each group and across
groups suggests that effects the program may have had (if any) were very small, and trended in
the negative direction (i.e., increased disruptive behavior and decreased prosocial behavior) for
group 1, and in the positive direction for group 2 (i.e., reduced disruptive behavior, increased
prosocial behavior). It is important to note, however, that the confidence intervals for the effect

21

sizes (TAU) of each of the daily behavior tracking statistics included zero – meaning that the
intervention may not have had any effect at all. See Table 1 for more details.
Table 1
TAU-U Analyses of Daily Behavior Tracking Data
Teacher Assessment Data

Disruptive Behavior Disorder Rating Scale
Friedman’s ANOVA was used to assess whether DBDRS disruptive behaviors declined
over time (i.e., baseline, pretreatment, and posttreatment). There were no significant differences
in scores over time for any of the DBDRS scales. See Table 2 for means, standard deviations,
and Friedman’s test statistics of each DBDRS scale.

Group(s) TAU p value 90% Confidence Interval
Disruptive
Behavior
1 0.0682 0.778 (-0.330, 0.467)
2 -0.1285

0.535 (-0.469, 0.212)
Combined -0.379 0.812 (-0.300, 0.224)

Prosocial
Behavior
1 -0.2159 0.373 (-0.615, 0.183)
2 0.0486 0.8143 (-0.292, 0.389)
Combined -0.0732 0.6457 (-0.335, 0.189)

22

Table 2

Teacher Disruptive Behavior Disorder Rating Scale Scores

Teacher Report Form
Friedman’s ANOVA was used to assess whether teacher-rated problem behaviors
declined over time. There were no significant differences in scores across all three assessment
timepoints (baseline, pretreatment, posttreatment) on the TRF broadband scales, the syndrome
scales, or the DSM-5 oriented scales. Most scales yielded null results with small effect sizes in
reducing problem behaviors. All effect size data trended in the negative direction, meaning that
scores on each of the TRF scales showed that problem behavior scores declined from
pretreatment to posttreatment. See Table 3 for means, standard deviations, and Friedman’s test
statistics of teacher report data.
Table 3
ASEBA Teacher Report Form Scale Scores

Scale Name Mean (SD)
Baseline
Mean (SD)
Pretreatment
Mean (SD)
Posttreatment
χ2 p value Kendall’s
W
OD/CD
symptoms
5.22 (6.76) 5.13 (7.92) 4.22 (7.79) 1.2381 .538 0.069
Inattention 9.56 (7.37) 8.78 (9.48) 8.89 (8.75) 0.26667 .875 0.015
Impulsivity
symptoms
6.67 (8.54) 7.33 (9.89) 6.62 (9.68) 1.9091 .385 0.106
Scale Name Mean (SD)
Baseline
Mean (SD)
Pretreatment
Mean (SD)
Posttreatment
χ2 p
value
Kendall’s
W
Total problems 58.33 (10.92) 55.22 (10.22) 55.56 (12.19) 5.706 .058 0.317
Broadband Scales
Internalizing
problems
52.44 (12.78) 49.78 (8.86) 49.78 (10.29) 2.000 .368 0.111
Externalizing
problems

58.00 (12.10) 56.44 (12.61) 55.89 (13.66) 0.538 .764 0.030

23

Youth Assessment Data

Friedman’s ANOVAs for the YSR showed significant reductions over time for the total
problems scale, the externalizing problems scale, and the following syndrome scales: attention
problems, rule-breaking behavior, and aggressive behavior. There were also significant
reductions in scores on two of the DSM based scales, the attention deficit scale and the conduct
problems scale. Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc tests indicated that there were significant reductions
in rule-breaking behavior from baseline to posttest (p=0.014) and pretreatment to posttreatment
(p=0.04), and in externalizing problems from baseline to posttreatment (p=0.020) and
pretreatment to posttreatment (p=0.007); all other pairwise comparisons were non-significant.
Syndrome based
scales

Anxious/depressed 54.11 (7.93) 53.00 (4.72) 53.78 (6.57) 1.625 .444 0.090
Withdrawn/depressed 59.44 (11.75) 54.56 (5.29) 55.00 (5.83) 3.909 .142 0.217
Somatic complaints 53.44 (5.72) 51.67 (3.32) 50.78 (2.33) 4.667 .97 0.259
Social problems 56.44 (9.15) 55.00 (9.01) 54.67 (9.47) 3.800 .150 0.211
Thought problems 56.11 (6.54) 53.33 (5.64) 53.89 (6.49) 1.391 .499 0.077
Attention problems 61.56 (10.40) 58.33 (9.27) 59.56 (11.45) 4.963 .084 0.276
Rule-breaking
behavior
60.00 (8.51) 58.44 (8.71) 58.56 (9.30) 1.407 .495 0.078
Aggressive behavior

60.11 (12.98) 58.78 (13.86) 58.56 (14.28) 0.560 .756 0.031
DSM-5 Based Scales
Depressive problems 58.78 (8.84) 54.67 (5.64) 54.89 (5.49) 2.214 .331 0.123
Anxiety problems 54.56 (9.45) 55.33 (7.53) 55.22 (8.59) 1.077 .584 0.060
Somatic problems 52.00 (4.00) 50.00 (0.00) 50.00 (0.00) 4.000 .135 0.222
Attention
deficit/hyperactivity
problems
62.11 (11.05) 58.78 (9.95) 59.56 (10.67) 4.846 .089 0.269
Oppositional defiant
problems
57.89 (8.24) 56.33 (9.18) 57.33 (9.63) 0.444 .801 0.025
Conduct problems 61.67 (13.44) 59.78 (13.54) 59.11 (12.82) 2.000 .368 0.111

24

Effect sizes for each scale on the YSR ranged from small (0.1) to large (>0.5). Of the syndrome-
based scales that yielded significant results, the attention problems scale and aggressive behavior
scales showed a moderate effect size, and the rule-breaking behavior showed a large effect size.
The total problems scale and the externalizing problems scale both showed a large effect size,
and of the DSM-based scales, the attention deficit/hyperactivity problems scale and the conduct
problems scales both yielded moderate effect sizes. Among the YSR data, effect size data from
each scale trended in the negative direction, i.e., problem behaviors declined. See Table 4 for
more detailed results.
Table 4

ASEBA Youth Report Form Scale Scores
Scale Name Mean (SD)
Baseline
Mean (SD)
Pretreatment
Mean (SD)
Posttreatment
χ2 p
value
Kendall’s
W
Total problems

60.89 (15.96) 61.00 (13.55) 47.67 (17.26) 6.229 .044 0.346
Broadband Scales
Internalizing
problems

55.33 (15.17) 56.22 (13.27) 45.33 (15.25) 3.353 .187 0.186
Externalizing
problems

64.78 (15.29) 63.00 (13.91) 52.44 (15.79) 10.889 .004 0.605
Syndrome Based
Scales

Anxious/depressed 59.00 (11.50) 60.00 (10.37) 53.56 (9.55) 5.407 .067 0.300
Withdrawn/depressed 56.89 (7.93) 59.56 (10.25) 54.11 (6.85) 5.793 .055 0.322
Somatic problems 59.56 (12.30) 55.56 (7.18) 55.00 (9.30) 0.818 .664 0.045
Social problems 63.00 (12.26) 61.44 (12.81) 56.33 (11.26) 2.552 .279 0.142
Thought problems 61.22 (12.82) 59.78 (10.91) 53.00 (7.16) 3.769 .152 0.209
Attention problems 62.11 (9.87) 63.56 (9.54) 56.44 (8.38) 6.250 .044 0.347
Rule breaking
behavior
67.67 (12.21) 65.33 (10.34) 58.11 (10.59) 10.364 .006 0.576

25

Discussion

This paper evaluated the feasibility and potential impact of PCT, a brief, strengths-based
intervention adapted for disruptive youth in an urban, middle school setting. Throughout the
program, youth were encouraged to view themselves as “leaders” with the capacity to coach their
peers to act in more prosocial ways. During the implementation process, several key adjustments
were made to improve youth engagement and enthusiasm for the program, which included
adding group rules, having the youth videotape each other’s skits, and adding group
contingencies to encourage the youth to practice their peer coach training skills outside of group.
Overall, we found that PCT was a feasible and promising intervention that could be implemented
with disruptive adolescents at a local, urban middle school.
Preliminary findings on the impact of PCT on youth behavior, however, was mixed.
Visual and quantitative analysis of teacher reports indicated that across both groups, there was no
substantial change in the youth behavior as a result of PCT, and in fact, group one seemed to

Aggressive behavior

64.67 (8.11) 62.89 (11.66) 57.44 (8.52) 7.517 .023 0.418
DSM Based Scales
Depressive problems 60.00 (12.02) 58.44 (9.29) 53.44 (8.52) 4.467 .107 0.248
Anxiety problems 58.44 (9.88) 58.78 (9.34) 53.67 (8.82) 3.379 .185 0.188
Somatic problems

59.44 (10.84) 55.22 (7.35) 54.89 (8.09) 4.526 .014 0.251
Attention
deficit/hyperactivity
problems

62.89 (9.74) 61.33 (9.82) 56.44 (7.88) 6.353 .042 0.353
Oppositional defiant
problems

59.78 (6.02) 59.22 (9.69) 55.22 (8.32) 4.500 .105 0.250
Conduct problems 67.22 (11.13) 66.44 (11.27) 58.89 (10.48) 7.200 .027 0.400

26

show increases in problem behaviors according to daily tracking data. In contrast, quantitative
analysis of youth self-report showed significant reductions over time for total problems and
externalizing problems, and for specific domains of disruptive behavior, including rule-breaking
behavior, aggressive behavior, attention deficit problems, and conduct problems. Furthermore,
effect sizes for these problem domains ranged from moderate to large, suggesting that the degree
of change from pre to post intervention was substantial. Thus, youth self-report data suggests that
behaviors that were targeted by PCT (e.g., rule breaking behavior, conduct problems) decreased
over time, whereas behaviors that were not targets (e.g., depressive and anxiety-related
problems) showed little change.
The significant reductions in rule-breaking behavior, aggressive behavior, attention
deficit problems, and conduct problems from pre-intervention to post-intervention may have
occurred as a result of adopting a “peer coach” identity, which we hypothesized as one potential
mechanism explaining PCT effects. Over the course of the PCT program, youth were instructed
to encourage their peers to engage in more prosocial behaviors by using positive reinforcement,
constructive feedback, and focused listening skills. In doing so, youth may have internalized new
identities as “coaches” – i.e., role models and leaders among their peers – which may have
caused a shift in their behavior to better reflect their new identities. Indeed, studies demonstrate
that self-identity is linked to subsequent behavior (e.g. Burke & Reitzes, 1981; Crocetti et al.,
2012). These changes in youth behavior over the course of the program, however, were either not
noticed by teachers or did not occur in the presence of their teachers.
There are several possible explanations for this discrepancy between teacher reported and
youth reported outcomes. First, teachers were only reporting on student behavior in their class
(i.e., during one 50-minute time period of the day) and youth may have been reporting on their

27

behavior in general (i.e., in all classes and on their behavior outside of school). Thus, it is
possible that overall, youth actually did reduce their disruptive or antisocial behavior, but that the
skills they learned (that were supposed to lead to reductions in negative behaviors and increases
in prosocial behaviors) were perhaps more salient in settings outside of the classroom.
Correlations across informants on ASEBA measures show that the average correlation between
youth and teacher ratings of youth externalizing behavior is approximately 0.39 (Youngstrom et
al., 2000). This low correlation could be indicative of the fact that youth behaviors are different
across contexts (e.g. home versus school). Although many of the scenarios youth were assigned
to act out during the sessions were school-related, when youth were asked to generate their own
scenarios of how and when they could act as peer coaches, they often offered examples that
occurred outside of the classroom (e.g., with their sibling at home, at the park with friends).
Furthermore, when youth were asked to report on times they practiced acting as a “peer coach”
to someone, they often wrote about instances when they acted as coaches outside of school. It is
important to note, however, that we do not have collateral data from other sources to confirm this
hypothesis, as we were unable to gather data from caregiver or peer informants that could
provide insight on the youth’s behavior outside of school. Gathering data from multiple
informants such as parents and/or peers could provide a more comprehensive picture of youth
behavior change over time across different settings (e.g. De Los Reyes et al., 2015; Dodge et al.,
2015).
Second, it is possible that teachers were susceptible to confirmation bias, or the tendency
to interpret events or stimuli in ways that map on to one’s previously existing schemas or
theories (Klayman, 1995), when providing feedback on student behavior. According to baseline
and pretreatment assessment data, as well as daily behavior tracking during baseline, the

28

majority of teachers rated referred youth as being quite disruptive in the classroom. Thus, it is
possible that youth behavior did improve over the course of the intervention, but that teachers’
subsequent ratings on the daily reports and assessments were unduly influenced by their earlier,
more difficult experiences with the youth. Unfortunately, with respect to the daily tracking data,
we were unable to conduct reliability analyses by having an outside source (like an RA) tally the
levels of disruptive behavior during class (e.g. Rilley-Tillman, et al., 2008). As such, we were
not able to determine whether or not confirmation bias was coloring teachers’ interpretations or
perceptions of students’ behavior in class.
Third, it is possible that students were not being entirely truthful in answering their
survey questions. There is evidence that adolescents are sometimes inaccurate or untruthful in
their self-reports (e.g. Fan et al., 2006), often due to carelessness (Cook et al., 2016), and
observations during data collection suggest that some youth may have been careless with their
responses. Several students were motivated to finish the 30-minute assessment as quickly as they
could, and would try to rush through without really reading the survey questions. For example,
youth sometimes attempted to turn in their assessments with several questions (often, an entire
page or two of questions) missing. Even if the surveys appeared complete, it is possible that
some youth randomly circled answers on the assessments without reading through the questions
in order to get through the assessment as quickly as possible, which would limit the validity of
our self-report findings (Curran, 2016; Cook et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2015). One such example
was discovered when a student indicated on the assessment that he sometimes had suicidal
thoughts. As per the IRB protocol, the author followed up with this student on the phone to
conduct a risk assessment. When the student was asked about his past suicidal ideation, he stated
that “he didn’t realize” that he had endorsed suicidal ideation because he was just “answering

29

randomly.”Although the RAs in charge of youth data collection were instructed to remind the
youth that agreeing to take part in our study meant that they were also agreeing to answer the
assessment questions honestly and thoroughly, and were also instructed to review youth
assessments before distributing gift cards to ensure the survey was complete, it is not possible to
“prove” that the youth were answering all of the assessment questions honestly. Furthermore, it
is possible that the youth were influenced by demand characteristics (Orne, 1962; Nichols &
Maner, 2008). Indeed, the youth were aware that they were being asked to complete the
assessments because they were participating in PCT, a program in which they were encouraged
to act as positive influence on their peers. Thus, they may have subconsciously felt that they
needed to answer the questions as if they were acting as effective peer coaches (i.e., by not
engaging in or reducing their disruptive behavior), since completing the assessments was related
to their participation in PCT.
Limitations and Future Directions

There are other important limitations to consider. As this was a pilot study, our sample
size was quite small. As such, all of our statistical analyses should be interpreted cautiously
(Cohen, 1992; Colquhoun, 2014; Maxwell, 2004), as we did not have enough power to reliably
detect changes in youth behavior from pretreatment to posttreatment, particularly for the teacher-
reported outcomes, which in general, trended in the right direction (i.e., reductions in target
problem behaviors), but not significantly so. Indeed, most of the teacher-based effect sizes were
small in magnitude. As such, it is possible that the intervention did cause change in youth
behavior, but it simply didn’t generate the degree of change we were anticipating, and we were
unable to detect any teacher-observed behavior change due to the small sample size (Simmons et
al., 2013). Furthermore, although we collected extensive daily tracking data from teachers, the

30

daily tracking behavior was fairly inconsistent. Some teachers often forgot to complete the
survey (despite reminders), and many youth were frequently absent from school (indeed,
disruptive youth are also more likely to be truant; Gubbels et al., 2019). Thus, a substantial
amount of daily tracking data was missing, which limited the validity of the data (Sterne et al.,
2009; Van Buuren, 2018). In addition, due to logistical constraints, we were not able to
implement the multiple baseline design as intended (i.e., start when, and only when, there is a
stable baseline of behavior). Although the baseline trends of behavior before each group began
were, in general, somewhat consistent, the timing of implementation was not as precise as it
could have been, as we had to start the group on a set date rather than start it as soon as we had
confidently established a steady baseline of behavior, which limits the internal validity of our
daily behavior tracking data. Furthermore, due to lack of resources, we were unable to conduct
reliability analyses with observer ratings of youth behavior in the classroom, which limits the
interpretability of our data (Mitchell, 1979; Wilhelm et al., 2018). Teachers were instructed to
tally the number of disruptive behaviors and prosocial behaviors that the youth engaged in during
class (i.e., in the moment they were occurring) to maximize accuracy, but it was impossible to
determine whether or not the teachers were actually collecting the data in real time (by tallying it
on a sheet of paper) as was instructed. In the future, provided that enough resources are
available, outside observers (e.g. undergraduate RAs) should visit each PCT student in class at
least once a week (i.e., at least 20% of all classes) to assess the reliability of the daily tracking.
Furthermore, a more efficient (and expensive) data collection tool, such as a clicker where
teachers could “click” a button anytime the youth engaged in a particular disruptive or prosocial
behavior as they were teaching, may ensure more accurate data collection (Bresch & Volpe,
2018).

31

As this was a pilot trial and there was no comparison group we cannot guarantee that any
changes detected from youth self-report data were actually due to the intervention. Indeed,
several other factors (aside from demand characteristics mentioned earlier in this section) may
have accounted for the reduction in self-reported disruptive behavior, such as maturation or
regression to the mean (Barnett et al., 2005; Christ, 2007; Dimitrov & Rumrill, 2003). In the
future, a study with a larger sample and randomized controlled trial (RCT) design would provide
better insight as to whether or not PCT affected youth behavior (Bothwell et al., 2016).
Although the primary purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of
implementing PCT in an urban middle school setting, it is important to note that the results are
not necessarily applicable to other populations and settings (Kenny, 2019). Indeed, the
demographics of the youth and teacher samples are not reflective of that of the general
population, and as such one cannot presume that this pilot would have yielded similar results in a
different population.
In spite of these limitations, this small pilot trial has important implications for future
research. First, this brief intervention is feasible to implement in a low-income, gang-impacted
school. Second, these very preliminary results suggest that this intervention may be effective in
improving youth behavior. Given that this was a relatively low-cost, group-based treatment that
can be offered in a school setting, implementation of PCT may be an extremely effective and
efficient way to improve students’ behavior on a large scale. As several students can receive this
treatment at once, and that students in PCT are actively encouraged to help their peers to act
more prosocially, it is possible that PCT might actually improve peer behavior (Telzer et al.,
2018). Given the potential large-scale effects and low cost of this intervention, PCT may be
especially appealing to low-income schools that have high rates of youth disruptive behavior.

32

Future trials of PCT should consider collecting data on the behavior of the enrolled youth’s peers
as well, as it would allow us to examine whether this intervention has far-reaching impact
beyond the individuals actually participating in PCT.
In short, it appears that PCT is a promising intervention that should be tested on a larger
scale with additional resources. A larger scale trial with more resources would allow us to hire at
least one full-time Spanish speaking staff so we can collect caregiver data from a primarily
Spanish-speaking population. We could also hire staff to travel to the school regularly to provide
reliability data on teacher daily behavior ratings, and perhaps invest in more efficient EMA data
collection technology that could provide more valid and reliable teacher data (Bresch & Volpe,
2018). These additions could allow us to more conclusively determine whether or not PCT is
effective.

33

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist and 1991 profile. Burlington:
University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA preschool forms and
profiles (Vol. 30). Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research center for children,
youth, & families.
Achenbach, T. M. (2014). Achenbach system of empirically based assessment (ASEBA). The
Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology, 1-8.
Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived
academic competence, and grades across the transition to middle-level
schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(3), 269-298.
Asher, S. R., & Coie, J. D. (1990). Peer rejection in childhood. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Atkins, M. S., Cappella, E., Shernoff, E. S., Mehta, T. G., & Gustafson, E. L. (2017). Schooling
and children's mental health: Realigning resources to reduce disparities and advance
public health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 123-147.
Axelrod, S., & Hall, R.V. (1991). Behavior modification: Basic principles. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Azrin, N.H., & Besalel-Azrin. (1999). How to use positive practice, self-correction, and
overcorrection. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2),
122.
Bandura, A. (1990). Multidimensional scales of perceived academic efficacy. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University.

34

Barnes, T. N., Smith, S. W., & Miller, M. D. (2014). School-based cognitive-behavioral
interventions in the treatment of aggression in the United States: A meta-
analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 311-321.
Barnett, A. G., Van Der Pols, J. C., & Dobson, A. J. (2005). Regression to the mean: What it is
and how to deal with it. International Journal of Epidemiology, 34(1), 215-220.
Bothwell, L. E., Greene, J. A., Podolsky, S. H., & Jones, D. S. (2016). Assessing the gold
standard—lessons from the history of RCTs. N England Journal of Medicine, 374(22),
2175-2181.
Briesch, A. M., & Volpe, R. J. (2018). Social, emotional, and behavioral assessment and
intervention. In Grapin, S. L., & Kranzler, J. H. (Eds.), School psychology: Professional
issues and practices. (pp. 149-166 ). Springer Publishing Company.
Christ, T. J. (2007). Experimental control and threats to internal validity of concurrent and
nonconcurrent multiple baseline designs. Psychology in the Schools, 44(5), 451-459.
Cohen, J. (1992) Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 98-
101.
Colman, I., Murray, J., Abbott, R. A., Maughan, B., Kuh, D., Croudace, T. J., & Jones, P. B.
(2009). Outcomes of conduct problems in adolescence: 40-year follow-up of national
cohort. Bmj, 338, a2981.
Colquhoun, D. (2014). An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-
values. Royal Society Open Science, 1(3), 140216.
Cook, N. E., Faust, D., Meyer, J. F., & Faust, K. A. (2016). The impact of careless and random
responding on juvenile forensic assessment: Susceptibility of commonly used measures

35

and implications for research and practice. Journal of Forensic Psychology
Practice, 16(5), 425-447.
Curran, P. G. (2016). Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey
data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 4-19.
de Bruyn, E. H., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). Popularity in early adolescence: Prosocial and
antisocial subtypes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21(6), 607–627.
De Los Reyes, A., Augenstein, T. M., Wang, M., Thomas, S. A., Drabick, D., Burgers, D. E., &
Rabinowitz, J. (2015). The validity of the multi-informant approach to assessing child
and adolescent mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 858–900.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038498
DeMarco, J. (1993). Peer helping skills: A leader’s guide for training peer helpers and peer
tutors for middle and high school. Minneapolis, MN: Johnson Institute.
Dimitrov, D. M., & Rumrill Jr, P. D. (2003). Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of
change. Work, 20(2), 159-165.
Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (2006). The development and ecology of antisocial behavior
in children and adolescents. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental
psychopathology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, Risk, Disorder, and Adaptation, pp. 503-541).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Dodge, K. A., Bierman, K. L., Coie, J. D., Greenberg, M. T., Lochman, J. E., McMahon, R. J., ...
& Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2015). Impact of early intervention on
psychopathology, crime, and well-being at age 25. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 172(1), 59-70.

36

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta‐analysis of school‐
based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432.
Eiraldi, R., Power, T. J., Schwartz, B. S., Keiffer, J. N., McCurdy, B. L., Mathen, M., & Jawad,
A. F. (2016). Examining effectiveness of group cognitive-behavioral therapy for
externalizing and internalizing disorders in urban schools. Behavior Modification, 40(4),
611-639.
Erford, B. T. (1997). Reliability and validity of scores on the disruptive behavior rating scale-
teacher version (DBDRS-T). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(2), 329-
339.
Esbensen, F. A., Winfree, L. T., He, N., & Taylor, T. J. (2001). Youth gangs and definitional
issues: When is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime & Delinquency, 4, 105-
130. doi:10.1177/1477370805048626
Eskreis-Winkler, L., Fishbach, A., & Duckworth, A. L. (2018). Dear Abby: Should I give advice
or receive it? Psychological Science, 29(11), 1797-1806.
Expimetrics. (2015). Retrieved April 10, 2019, from https://app.expimetrics.com/
Eyberg, S. M., Nelson, M. M., & Boggs, S. R. (2008). Evidence-based psychosocial treatments
for children and adolescents with disruptive behavior. Journal of Clinical Child &
Adolescent Psychology, 37(1), 215-237.
Fan, X., Miller, B. C., Park, K. E., Winward, B. W., Christensen, M., Grotevant, H. D., & Tai, R.
H. (2006). An exploratory study about inaccuracy and invalidity in adolescent self-report
surveys. Field Methods, 18(3), 223-244.

37

Farahmand, F. K., Grant, K. E., Polo, A. J., & Duffy, S. N. (2011). School‐based mental health
and behavioral programs for low‐income, urban youth: A systematic and meta‐analytic
review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 18(4), 372-390.
Friedman, M. (1937). The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the
analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32(200), 675-701.
Friedman, M. (1940). A comparison of alternative tests of significance for the problem of m
rankings. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11(1), 86-92.
Figlio, D. N. (2007). Boys named Sue: Disruptive children and their peers. Education Finance
and Policy, 2(4), 376-394.
Gartner, A. and Reissman, F. 1977. Self-help in the human services. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Gregory, A., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). The discipline gap and African Americans: Defiance or
cooperation in the high school classroom. Journal of School Psychology, 46(4), 455–475.
Gubbels, J., van der Put, C. E., & Assink, M. (2019). Risk factors for school absenteeism and
dropout: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(9), 1637-1667.
Hodgkinson, S., Godoy, L., Beers, L. S., & Lewin, A. (2017). Improving mental health access
for low-income children and families in the primary care setting. Pediatrics, 139(1),
e20151175.
Huang, J. L., Liu, M., & Bowling, N. A. (2015). Insufficient effort responding: Examining an
insidious confound in survey data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 828.
Huey, S. J., Jr., & Galbraith, K. (2020). Peer Coach Training intervention manual. Los Angeles,
CA: University of Southern California.

38

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2009). Focusing on children's health:
Community approaches to addressing health disparities: Workshop summary.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/12637.
Jackson, N.F., Jackson, D. A., & Monroe, C. (1983). Getting along with others: Teaching social
effectiveness to children. Champaign: IL: Research Press.
Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Kazdin, A. E. (2001). Behavior modification in applied settings (6th ed.). Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning.
Kazdin, A. E. (2018). Single-case experimental designs. Evaluating interventions in research and
clinical practice. Behaviour Research and Therapy. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2018.11.015
Klayman, J. (1995). Varieties of confirmation bias. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 32,
385-418.
Kenny, D. A. (2019). Enhancing validity in psychological research. American
Psychologist, 74(9), 1018.
Lavy, V., Paserman, M. D., & Schlosser, A. (2011). Inside the black box of ability peer effects:
Evidence from variation in the proportion of low achievers in the classroom. The
Economic Journal, 122(559), 208-237.
Legendere, P. (2012). Coefficient of concordance. In N. J. Salkind (ed.), Encyclopedia of
research design (165-169). SAGE Publications.
Loeber, R., Burke, J. D., & Pardini, D. A. (2009). Development and etiology of disruptive and
delinquent behavior. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 291-310.

39

McEvoy, A., & Welker, R. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic failure, and school climate: A
critical review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral disorders, 8(3), 130-140.
Mitchell, S. K. (1979). Interobserver agreement, reliability, and generalizability of data collected
in observational studies. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 376.
Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular
reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American
Psychologist, 17(11), 776.
Nichols, A. L., & Maner, J. K. (2008). The good-subject effect: Investigating participant demand
characteristics. The Journal of General Psychology, 135(2), 151-166.
Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity:
Two distinct dimensions of peer status. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 18(2), 125-
144.
Pelham Jr, W. E., Gnagy, E. M., Greenslade, K. E., & Milich, R. (1992). Teacher ratings of
DSM-III-R symptoms for the disruptive behavior disorders. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(2), 210-218.
Pelletier, J., Collett, B., Gimpel, G., & Crowley, S. (2006). Assessment of disruptive behaviors in
preschoolers: Psychometric properties of the disruptive behavior disorders rating scale
and school situations questionnaire. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24(1), 3-
18.
Pope, A. W., Bierman, K. L., & Mumma, G. H. (1991). Aggression, hyperactivity, and
inattention-immaturity: Behavior dimensions associated with peer rejection in elementary
school boys. Developmental Psychology, 27(4), 663.

40

Mendez, L. R., & Knopf, H. M. (2003). Who gets suspended from school and why: A
demographic analysis of schools and disciplinary infractions in a large school
district. Education and Treatment of Children, 26(1), 30-51.
National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). (2016). School-Based Mental Health
Services. Retrieved from https://nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resources-
and-podcasts/mental-health/school-psychology-and-mental-health/school-based-mental-
health-services
Raines, T. C., & Crumpton, H. (2017). Social, emotional, and behavioral assessment with
culturally and linguistically diverse populations. In Handbook of multicultural school
psychology (pp. 218-233). Routledge.
Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., Petras, H., & Ialongo, N. S. (2008). Empirically derived subtypes
of child academic and behavior problems: Co-occurrence and distal outcomes. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(5), 759-770.
Riessman, F. (1965). The “helper” therapy principle. Social Work, 10(2) 27-32.

Riley-Tillman, T. C., Chafouleas, S. M., Sassu, K. A., Chanese, J. A., & Glazer, A. D. (2008).
Examining the agreement of direct behavior ratings and systematic direct observation
data for on-task and disruptive behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 10(2), 136-143.
Robers, S., Kemp, J., & Truman, J. (2013). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2012. NCES
2013-036/NCJ 241446. National Center for Education Statistics.
Rones, M., & Hoagwood, K. (2000). School-based mental health services: A research
review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3(4), 223-241.
Ross, B., & McKay, H. B. (1976). Adolescent therapists. Canada's Mental Health, 24(2), 15-17.

41

Shetgiri, R., Kataoka, S., Ponce, N., Flores, G., & Chung, P. J. (2010). Adolescent fighting:
Racial/ethnic disparities and the importance of families and schools. Academic
Pediatrics, 10(5), 323-329.
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2013). Life after p-hacking. Meeting of the
Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA, 17-19 January 2013.
Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract¼2205186 or http://dx.doi.org/10.
2139/ssrn.220518
Sterne, J. A., White, I. R., Carlin, J. B., Spratt, M., Royston, P., Kenward, M. G., ... & Carpenter,
J. R. (2009). Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical
research: Potential and pitfalls. Bmj, 338, b2393.
Sturaro, C., Van Lier, P. A., Cuijpers, P., & Koot, H. M. (2011). The role of peer relationships in
the development of early school‐age externalizing problems. Child Development, 82(3),
758-765.
Telzer, E. H., Van Hoorn, J., Rogers, C. R., & Do, K. T. (2018). Social influence on positive
youth development: a developmental neuroscience perspective. In Advances in child
development and behavior (Vol. 54, pp. 215-258). JAI.
Van Buuren, S. (2018). Flexible imputation of missing data. CRC Press.

Wilhelm, A. G., Rouse, A. G., & Jones, F. (2018). Exploring differences in measurement and
reporting of classroom observation inter-rater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research,
and Evaluation, 23(1), 4.
Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). School-based interventions for aggressive and disruptive
behavior: Update of a meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(2),
S130-S143.

42

Wilson, S. J., Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (2003). The effects of school-based intervention
programs on aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 71(1), 136.
Youngstrom, E., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2000). Patterns and correlates of
agreement between parent, teacher, and male adolescent ratings of externalizing and
internalizing problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(6), 1038.
Zimmerman, D. W., & Zumbo, B. D. (1993). Relative power of the Wilcoxon test, the Friedman
test, and repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 62(1), 75-86.

43

Appendix A

Introduction

This brief manual is designed as a guide for implementing peer coach training (PCT) for middle-
school youth with disruptive behavior problems. PCT takes a counterintuitive approach that
deemphasizes the youth’s existing problems and focuses instead on training youth to help others.
It involves teaching principles of positive reinforcement to youth and encouraging them to
influence their peers as coaches, which should lead to the development of new “helper”
identities.

PCT builds directly on work by Ross and McKay (1976) showing the benefits of “peer therapist
training” for institutionalized, delinquent girls. They found that training girls as “peer therapists”
was dramatically more effective than alternative approaches at reducing institutional offenses
(e.g., assaults, property damage) and post-institutional recidivism. Although promising, Ross and
McKay’s model has never been applied to middle-school youth with disruptive behavior
problems. Moreover, beyond general descriptions of the treatment model (Ross and McKay,
1976; 1979), the “peer therapist training” intervention has not been manualized.

This manual integrates materials and examples from multiple sources, including publications by
Axelrod and Hall (1999), Azrin and Besalel (1999), Jackson et al. (1983), Kazdin (2001), and
Ross and McKay (1976; 1979). This is essentially a “beta” intervention manual that will help
guide our first run of PCT. As such, we expect substantial additions and revisions after
completing the intervention with several cohorts of youth.

General Guidelines for PCT Facilitators

This guide is designed for PCT facilitators, who are tasked with: (1) engaging youth in PCT, (2)
enabling acquisition of basic reinforcement skills, (3) modeling “coaching” behaviors, and (4)
emphasizing the youths’ role as helper and expert. The guidelines and descriptions below were
developed with these primary goals in mind.

• Emphasize the Youth’s Expertise
o Throughout training, regularly elicit youth responses, feedback, and advice
▪ Some youth will regularly volunteer responses, whereas others will not
volunteer at all without prompting. To help ensure roughly equal
engagement across youth, your general approach should be to call on
specific youth rather than broadly asking for volunteers.
o As facilitators, we should authentically present ourselves as novices when it
comes to youth behavior, and that we are dependent on the youths’ help.
Emphasize to youth that they are the true experts who know much more about
how their peers think and behave, and what motivates them, than we do. We are
merely facilitators with limited knowledge of the youth’s peers or the larger
culture of their school.

44

o For each session, make sure to elicit responses, feedback, and/or advice from all
participating youth!
o Beginning with session 3 or so, use the “coach” label liberally

• Maximize Interactives and Minimize Didactics
o Make the sessions as interactive and engaging as possible. Didactics or lecturing
should make up no more than 10-15% of session time
o The facilitator should talk/lecture no more than 3-4 minutes without a group
exercise, discussion, dialogue, etc.
o As a rule of thumb, 40-60% of session time should probably involve role-play,
practice, and rehearsal, with feedback

• Focus on Reinforcement Skills Training
o Make your primary focus on reinforcement and behavior analysis skills
o Use behavioral skills training to build specific skills. Basic steps involve:
▪ Instruction
▪ Modeling
▪ Rehearsal, role-play, or positive practice, and
▪ Feedback
o Show/practice, don’t preach. Instructions should be brief, concise, and clear, and
account for only a small amount of training time.
o Depth not breadth. It’s better to build a few specific skills to mastery, rather than
train multiple skills poorly. Do NOT get overly ambitious and try to teach the
youth lots of new skills.

• Emphasize the Positives
o Be heavy on the positives during training. Some praise practice should be a
standard part of each session, with each youth giving a least one praise comment
or compliment to another member. At end of session, facilitator should give
summary praise to each youth.
o Facilitators should focus on modeling positive statements and interactions with
others
o Use praise liberally
o Positive framing & interactions with no confrontation
o Focus on reinforcing prosocial/positive behaviors

• Use Reprimands Rarely and Cautiously
o As a general rule, try to avoid using or encouraging reprimands, critical remarks,
or other responses that might be perceived as punishing
o When youth are critical of other group members, non-cooperative, or otherwise
behaving in ways that disrupt group progress/process, consider one of more of the
strategies below
▪ Give a response that models use of behavior analysis skills
• E.g., “Hold up, I want to see if I understand what’s going on here.
Sounds like when Lisa said XXX, you thought that was extremely
unfair, and that made you angry, and that’s why you responded

45

with XXX. Is that right – or close? If not, can you break it down
for me?”
▪ Reframe to emphasize the positives, while encouraging prosocial
responses
• E.g., “OK, it’s good that you’re being assertive and defending
yourself. Another way to say that is that it’s frustrating when
Edward interrupts you while you’re speaking and that you’d
appreciate him letting you finish in the future.”
▪ Use overcorrection (i.e., “restitution” with positive practice) to develop
competing prosocial responses.
o If you feel a reprimand is warranted, consider these general rules:
▪ Reprimand immediately after the target behavior occurs
▪ Specify the target behavior without critiquing or disparaging the youth’s
character
▪ Be brief and make eye contact when delivering the reprimand
▪ Immediately follow-up with one of the positive strategies above (e.g.,
positive practice, behavior analysis)
▪ E.g., “You saying XXX to Rosa was inconsiderate and probably hurt her
feelings. Help walk me through what led to that outcome”
o Whichever strategies you ultimately use, praise participating youth once the
encounter ends for providing opportunities for the group to observe and practice
challenging situations that they’ll face as peer coaches!
▪ Remind them that it’s difficult to master a skill without good practice!

46

Session 1: PCT Orientation (~3 hours)

Opening (~10-20 min)
• Opening statement – something like “Hi coaches – I’m Katie and this is Jackie. We’re
graduate students at USC –we will be your group facilitators for the Peer Coach Training
for today”
o If needed – do you know what graduate students are?
o Before we start, we want to go over some group rules that will help make session
run as smoothly as possible today.

Group Rules (5-10 mins)
• Cell phones in the basket at all times during group. We’ll let you have them during
breaks so you can check them. We know it can be tempting to be on your phone in the
middle of group, for us too – so we’re all going to put our phones in this basket so we
make sure that everyone is focused and on the same page.
o Exception – instructors might have to use for emergencies and/or for filming.
• Vegas Rule – What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas – we want everyone to feel free to
share whatever they want to in here – so we expect everyone will respect each other’s
privacy
o Exception: if we hear of child abuse or elderly abuse, if any of you seriously
expresses a desire to harm yourself or someone else – we will have to tell
someone. But we will come talk to you privately before we tell anyone so you
know what’s going on.
• The platinum rule: treat everyone the way they want to be treated – be respectful
• Microphone rule – only one person talks at a time (aside from when we do the skits,
which we’ll explain shortly)
• Leave class only with permission
• No throwing things, hitting others, climbing, name calling, or yelling
• Before we begin, let’s all introduce ourselves. We’re going to ask you to turn to the
person to your left, and tell them your name, where you’re from, and something you’re
really good at. When you’re done, we’ll regroup and each of us will introduce the person
we talked to.
o For example, if Jackie here introduced herself to me and told me a bit about what
she’s good at, when we come back to the group, I would be the one to introduce
Jackie. And Jackie would introduce me to the group. Does that make sense?
▪ give an example if necessary –
• Go around the group, have each person introduce the person to their left
• Great! So now everyone knows everyone.

System – we want to help motivate you guys! Do you want the ticket system or voting system
[Katie explains]

Overview of program (~5 minutes)
• Do you know what peer coach training is? Do you know why you were selected?

47

• Explain the broad goals of PCT
o We want you to train your friends and peers to act in ways that will help them and
help make the school climate more positive. In other words, we want you to be a
“coach” for your peers who might be struggling to act in positive ways at school
o We need YOU to help us with these goals. You all are the experts here. You were
all selected to participate for many reasons. You know what it’s like to struggle
with conflict in middle school, and you all are leaders who can influence the
others in your class.
• We’re going to be giving you some tools to help coach your peers – but we also are going
to need you to teach us the ways you think you could help your peers deal with things
like conflict, anger, and other issues.
• We’ll be meeting once a week over the next four weeks, to check in on what you’ve
learned today and how well you’ve been able to help your peers.
Brief Overview of How To Be A Good (Peer) Coach
• Hey [so and so – just pick a student] how do you feel when someone is criticizing you?
o Not great, right? You probably don’t feel all that motivated to change or improve
what you’re doing in response.
o As a general rule, we’re not big fans of approaches that mostly involve
punishment, criticism, or critical remarks
• How do you feel when someone gives you positive feedback?
o Ask a specific student if no one responds
o In general, people tend to be more motivated when they’re given positive
feedback
• Ask: “What’s more important in helping other people perform better – using positive
feedback to let people know when they’re doing well, or offering critical or constructive
comments to help them when they’re off track?”
▪ How many say positive feedback when doing well?
▪ How many say critical or constructive when off track?
▪ OK this is sort of a trick question.
• Both can be helpful, but research having a much bigger focus on
positives and much less on critical can be way more motivating for
people!
• Maybe a 5:1 or 6:1 ratio…. i.e., 6 positives for every critical
comment
• So remember – positive feedback is really important – but if someone is really off track,
it is OK to give them constructive feedback to make sure they don’t get too off track, but
you should include some positive feedback in there too.
• Today, we’re mostly going to practice positive feedback. But next week, we’ll talk about
how and when to incorporate constructive feedback or suggestions for improvement.

Pizza Break (10 mins – kids can keep eating pizza during group if they want it)

Reinforcement Training (60-80 min)
• **during this section, and throughout the session, facilitators should focus on reinforcing
positive behavior while avoiding positive comments about the youths’ appearance**

48

• Introduce Positive Reinforcement (5 mins)
o In general, people don’t get enough credit for doing the right thing. Instead, we
focus a lot more on the negative things people do. Adults do this a lot with kids.
But kids do this to other kids as well.
o One type of positive reinforcement is praise!
• Introduce Praise (5 mins)
o Praise is saying something good about what a person did
o Rules for GIVING Praise: -- Katie to write on board
▪ Use a pleasant face & voice
▪ Look at the person
▪ Tell the person exactly what you like about what the person did – be
specific
▪ When possible, praise the person right after it happened
▪ Avoid sarcasm
▪ For this exercise, avoid generic compliments
o Rules for RECEIVING Praise
▪ Use a pleasant face & voice
▪ Look at the person
▪ Acknowledge by saying “thank you”, “thanks”, “you’re welcome”, or
something similar
o Katie and Jackie to do a very quick example to demonstrate
• Introduce Video Portion of Training
o So – we’ve taught you a little bit about praise. We want YOU to help teach your
peers about praise and how it can help kids act more positively. We’re going to
ask you to make videos instructing kids on how to give others positive feedback
o We’ll ask you to act out how to give positive feedback in a skit. We’re going to
break you up into two groups, and each of you will perform whatever scene is
assigned to you. You’ll also be asked to give kids instructions on giving positive
feedback to their peers at the end, so that other kids like you can watch your video
and understand how to use positive reinforcement, or praise, to influence their
peers. Each group will videotape their skits and instructional videos, and then
we’ll get to see each other’s videos afterwards. I’ll project them on my computer
(or projector, if we get one) here.
• Start Videoing Vignettes (~30 minutes)
o [break up into assigned groups. Katie to make vignettes and give each group one
(or more) vignette]
o Have kids practice the vignette once, give feedback as necessary, and then tape it.
o Maybe we can also have them do some sort of instructional portion - we could
write down the key points about positive feedback (e.g. 5-6:1 ratio, looking
someone in the eye, avoiding compliments about their appearance, etc) and have
them go over it in video – ask them to do it in a way that they think other kids will
be most likely to listen to them.
• Show each group the other’s tape (20 minutes)
o After 30 or so minutes, bring the group back together. Now, we’re going to watch
each other’s videos. While you’re watching each other’s videos, I want you all to
think of some praise you can give the other group about their video.

49

o Have students give each other specific praise for the other group’s video.

Break – 5-10 minutes

Video Portion – Part 2 (40 minutes or so)
• So last time we make skits, we were giving you scenes to act out. Now, we want you to
come up with your own scenes – to demonstrate how to use positive feedback effectively.
o Show how when you use positive reinforcement, you can get the behavior you
want to increase to increase.
• Make sure to use examples your peers could relate to.
• At the end, we’ll watch each other’s videos and see what everyone came up with.
• Watch videos
o Have kids come up with praise for the other group’s video

Regroup – get back together and have students discuss - why is it important to give and
receive praise? How can it help you help others? (10 minutes)
• Discuss Rationales for Using Praise
o Why do you think it’s important to give and receive praise?
o [Call on specific youth. Prompt and elaborate as necessary]
o [Try to elicit variations on the following responses]
▪ Makes people feel good/important
▪ Helps make/keep friends
▪ Encourages people to do the thing you praise them for
▪ Makes people more likely to do nice things for you
▪ People will respond in kind – they will compliment you more often (esp. if
you receive the compliment the right way)

Praise Practice (but don’t call it homework) – 10 minutes
• So – to really get a hang of this, like anything, you need to practice! This is great we’ve
been practicing praise in here, but we want you to use it in the real world – like in class
with some other students.
• Try using praise to help another student behave better in class
• If all of you bring this back and it’s complete – then you all will get free movie tickets
and we’ll bring soft drinks for everyone next session. If 3 of you complete, then we’ll
bring just soft drinks for next session.

------------------------------------------------End of Session---------------------------------------------------

50

Session 2: Constructive Feedback (50 minutes)

Intro/Review – 5-10 minutes
• Greet everyone and briefly note:
o It’s nice seeing everyone again [say everyone’s name]
o This session will only be 50 minutes
• Remember the Group Rules (point to board, written on board) from last time
o Collect cell phones and put in “bucket”
• Review
o Did everyone remember to bring their task sheet? [If all yes, hand out movie
tickets and soda; if ¾ yes, distribute soda]
▪ Congratulate students if yes
▪ If not, let them know that they’ll have other opportunities later
o Go over sheet briefly
▪ What was the experience like? Easy? Hard? Were you able to give
praise/positive feedback in the way you we learned how to (e.g. specific,
with a pleasant face/voice, right after the positive behavior)
▪ Did it work?
▪ How did you feel?
▪ Did people notice?
o **If no one brings their hw, then just review the material from last time – e.g.
what are things you remember from last session?

Constructive Feedback Training (30-35 min)

• Introduce Giving and Receiving Constructive Feedback (i.e., Suggestions for
Improvement)
o We’re going to focus on giving and receiving constructive feedback. We also
refer to constructive feedback as Suggestions for Improvement.
o When you and another person are having trouble getting along, OR you see that
someone you know is having trouble getting along with others, you can work on
the problem together by giving and receiving constructive feedback to improve
the situation.
o Rules for GIVING Constructive Feedback:
▪ Use a pleasant face & voice
▪ Look at the person
▪ Say something nice on the topic (e.g., “I like the way you…”)
▪ Make the suggestion (e.g., “It would be better if…”)
▪ Thank the person for listening (e.g., “Thanks for listening”)
o Rules for RECEIVING Constructive Feedback:
▪ Use a pleasant face & voice
▪ Listen to the suggestion
▪ Make no excuses
▪ Thank the person for the suggestion (e.g., “Thanks for the feedback”)

51

• Demonstrate Constructive Feedback (Appropriate and Inappropriate)
o [Facilitators demonstrate appropriate and inappropriate example of giving and
receiving constructive feedback]
o Facilitator Examples
▪ This is the right way to give and receive constructive feedback.
• [Facilitator gives scenario and models example with youth
participant. Make sure to highlight the rules adhered to and praise
the youth]
▪ This is the wrong way to give and receive feedback to others
• [Facilitator gives scenario and models poor example with youth
participant. Make sure to highlight the rules adhered violated and
praise youth]

• Introduce Filming
o OK, now we’re on to the filming part. We want to create a set of videos that
shows students the correct and incorrect ways to perform different social skills.
{Should we mention that these are the same skills they will be using as coaches?}
o Today we want you to create videos that instruct students on good and bad ways
to give constructive feedback. We’ll ask you to act out how to give constructive
feedback in a skit. You’ll be divided into groups, and you’ll perform the scene
assigned to you.
o This will be videotaped, and later we’ll give feedback on each other’s videos. You
will take turns acting and directing. {It’d be nice if each kid also got a turn at
DIRECTING. If we do this, depending on group size, facilitators may need to be
actors as well}

• Role-Play and Videotape Constructive Feedback
o [Break into groups and assign vignettes]
o [Have youth practice once or twice, give feedback, then videotape the scene]
o start by giving a concrete instructions on the way to give constructive feedback,
then have them act out the scene, e.g. have them fill in the blanks “I like how you
did , but it’d be better if you could also do . Thanks for listening”
o [Have kids switch roles and do the same scene, which each serving as the prime
actor, supporting actor, and director at least once?]

o [Should there be a criterion for demonstrating the skill at a threshold level at least
once?]

Break (5 minutes)

• Videotape Student’s Self-Generated Vignettes
o OK now we want you to come up with your own scenes to show how to give
constructive feedback
o Make sure to use examples your friends could related to
o [Go through the same filming and feedback process]

52

• Discuss Rationales for Constructive Feedback (If Time??)
o Why do you think it’s important to give and receive constructive Feedback?
o [Call on specific youth. Prompt and elaborate as necessary]
o [Try to elicit variations on the following responses]
▪ Helps you solve problems without making people feel back
▪ You feel better when you get along with others
▪ It’s hard to get better if don’t get any feedback when things don’t go as
planned

New Take Home Task (5 min)

• [Assign Giving & Receiving Constructive Feedback sheet]
• We have an assignment for you. This is great we’ve been practicing constructive
feedback in here, but we want you to use it in the real world and see how it works
• Katie will remind you to do this over the course of the week a couple of times via text or
email.

----------------------------------------------------End of Session-----------------------------------------------

53

Session 3: Focused Listening (50 minutes)

Intro
• Greet everyone and briefly note:
o It’s nice seeing everyone again [say everyone’s name]
o Like before, this session will only be 50 minutes

Review of Group Rules (2 mins)
• Let’s quickly review the group rules again
• Cell phones in the basket at all times during group. We’ll let you have them during our
brief break so you can check them. We know it can be tempting to be on your phone in
the middle of group, for us too – so we’re all going to put our phones in this basket so we
make sure that everyone is focused and on the same page.
o Exception – instructors might have to use for emergencies and/or for filming.
• Vegas Rule – What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas – we want everyone to feel free to
share whatever they want to in here – so we expect everyone will respect each other’s
privacy
o Exception: if we hear of child abuse or elderly abuse, if any of you seriously
expresses a desire to harm yourself or someone else – we will have to tell
someone. But we will come talk to you privately before we tell anyone so you
know what’s going on.
• The platinum rule: treat everyone the way they want to be treated – be respectful
• Microphone rule – only one person talks at a time (aside from when we do the skits,
which we’ll explain shortly)
• Leave class only with permission
• Respect the space - No throwing things, hitting others, climbing, name calling, or yelling

Go Over HW (5 mins)

How was it? How did giving constructive feedback feel? Who did you try it out on? What
happened? Was it helpful? Did it work?

Focus Listening Overview (5 min)
Can you tell when someone is listening to what you’re saying versus not listening to what you’re
saying?
How?
How do you feel when someone is really listening? What about not listening?
[Ask youth act out an example of what they think good/bad listening looks like]

Lecture part – minimizing this as much as possible:
• Being a peer coach involves several big skills.
• The first session we focused on giving & receiving praise for things done correctly.
• Last week we focused on constructive feedback for areas that need improvement

54

• However, one of the most difficult skills to learn and use when being a good peer coach
is focused listening

• Why is focused listening helpful?
o Understanding. Helps you understand problems from the other persons point of
view
o Care. Shows people that we care
o Better mood. When people talk about their problems AND you listen, it helps
people feel better.
o When kids have problems or get in trouble, they often feel upset, sad, confused,
and alone. These feelings can keep them from coming up with good solutions to
their problems.
▪ Good listening often frees up kids to better think through their problems

• Today we’ll practice 3 listening skills
o Attending
o Paraphrasing
o Reflecting

• Elements (skills) of focused listening
o Genuine
▪ Means being the real you when you’re helping someone. It’s acting natural
rather than phony, but in a respectful way
o Understanding
▪ Means trying your best to see things from the other person’s point of view.
▪ One way to do this is by recognizing and describing the other’s thoughts
and feelings as best you can
o Trustworthy
▪ Means being seen as a person who can be trusted
▪ Best way to do this is by keeping private the things you’re told
▪ However, some things can’t be kept secret. For example, if kids actively
thinking about or planning to commit suicide, this can’t be kept secret

Exercise 1: Attending (15 min)
• [This exercise involves one person listening and the other speaking. Each youth should
cycle through the role of listener and speaker]
• [If it helps with engagement, videotape these exercises as well, and perhaps have one
youth as director]
• Attending is how we use our bodies to show others we’re interested in listening to them
• Attending skills:
o Squarely face the person you’re helping
o Keep good [but not awkward] eye contact
o Use occasional nodding of head and “mm-hmms”
o Lean slightly toward the person
• Directions for Attending Skills Practice

55

o One of you starts as the listener and the other as speaker
o Sit opposite each other, facing each other, at about arms length
o The speaker tells the listener what they did today
o The listener just listens. But start with the BAD example. Listener should
▪ Keep arms folded
▪ Look down or away, but NOT at partner
o Do this for 1 minute

o OK, do this again, but this time the lister gives a GOOD example. Listener
should:
▪ Keep arms opened
▪ Maintain eye contact
▪ Occasionally nod head
▪ Use some “mm-hmms”
▪ Lean slightly toward speaker
o Do this for 1 minute

o Switch roles and have the new listener give BAD and GOOD example
o 1 minute each time

o [Make sure that each youth gives appropriate examples for each before moving
on]

Exercise 2: Paraphrasing and Reflecting (20 min)
• [This exercise involves one person listening and the other speaking. Each youth should
cycle through the role of listener and speaker]
• [Again, if it helps with engagement, have the youth videotape themselves doing these
exercises as well]

• Responding is what we say after we have listened
• These are the goals of helpful responding:
o Showing speaker that we understand them
o Helping speaker talk more about their problems or concerns
• We’ll talk about 2 types of Responding skills: Paraphrasing and Reflecting

• Paraphrasing is
o Saying in different words what someone said
o Example:
▪ Statement:
• “I wish I didn’t have to come to school. Everybody puts me down”
▪ Paraphrase:
• “People at school insult you, so you’d rather stay home”

• Reflecting is
o Mirroring or telling back the other person’s feelings.

56

o Reflecting has 3 parts
▪ Telling what you think the person feels
• “You feel sad”
▪ Telling what you think caused the feeling
• “You feel sad because you lost the race”
▪ Checking with the person to make sure your reflection was right
• “Is that it?”
• Or you can just pause and let the person’s body language tell you
whether you were right
o Reflection usually follows this format
▪ “You feel… because…. Is that it?”

• Directions for Paraphrasing/Reflecting Practice
o [Facilitator should project on the screen/wall (or write on the board) the
Paraphrasing & Reflecting Guidelines]
o One of you starts as the listener and the other as speaker
o The speaker will make up a problem and talk about it for 3 minutes
o While the speaker is speaking, the listener should respond with a paraphrase and a
reflection
o [Again, have youth videotape each other in this activity if you feel that will help
with engagement]

o [Switch roles and have the new listener paraphrase and reflect appropriately

o [If there’s a 3rd youth, they can be the observer. The observer may help the
speaker make up and tell a problem and may also help the listener to paraphrase
and reflect]

o [Have youth reflect on (1) what it was like to hear someone paraphrase and reflect
back their words, and (2) Their reactions to using paraphrasing and reflecting as
ways of helping]

Distribute HW 3
Remind youth of incentives if they complete, and ask them about new incentives if they
completing task sheet 1 (so we’re not giving them the same incentives)
------------------------------------------------End of Session---------------------------------------------------

57

PCT Session 4: Coaching Introduction (50 minutes)

Intro
• Greet everyone and briefly note:
o It’s nice seeing everyone again [say everyone’s name]
o Again, this session will only be about 50 minutes

Review of Group Rules (5 mins)
• Let’s quickly review the group rules again
• Cell phones in the basket at all times during group. We’ll let you have them during our
brief break so you can check them. We know it can be tempting to be on your phone in
the middle of group, for us too – so we’re all going to put our phones in this basket so we
make sure that everyone is focused and on the same page.
o Exception – instructors might have to use for emergencies and/or for filming.
• Vegas Rule – What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas – we want everyone to feel free to
share whatever they want to in here – so we expect everyone will respect each other’s
privacy
o Exception: if we hear of child abuse or elderly abuse, if any of you seriously
expresses a desire to harm yourself or someone else – we will have to tell
someone. But we will come talk to you privately before we tell anyone so you
know what’s going on.
• The platinum rule: treat everyone the way they want to be treated – be respectful
• Microphone rule – only one person talks at a time (aside from when we do the skits,
which we’ll explain shortly)
• Leave class only with permission
• Respect the space - No throwing things, climbing, etc.

Peer Coaching Overview (5-10 min)
• Being a peer coach involves several big skills.
• The first session we focused on giving & receiving praise for things done correctly.
• The week after we focused on constructive feedback for areas that need improvement
• Last week we learned about focused listening, which involved Attending, Paraphrasing,
& Reflecting.
• Today we’ll focus on bringing these skills together and helping friends who need help
• So this part isn’t so much about you, but instead your commitment to helping a friend or
two who may need help

• The 3 skills so far are these:
o Giving & receiving praise
▪ [Show the Powerpoint slide]
▪ [Call on someone to demonstrate]
o Constructive feedback
▪ [Show the Powerpoint slide]
▪ [Call on someone to demonstrate]

58

o Focused listening
▪ [Show the Powerpoint slide]
▪ [Call on someone to demonstrate Attending, then Paraphrasing, then
Reflecting. If no one remembers, then facilitator demonstrates]

Exercise 1: Peer Coaching Scenes (15 min)
• We want you to start using your skills to motivate and help your friends and classmates
when they’re facing problems in school

• First, we want you to role play on camera using some specific examples that we prepped
o Actor 1 – Target kid: One of you will be the kid who engaged in the behavior. In
the role play, you’re talking with the peer coach after the event occurred and
explaining what happened from your perspective
▪ Maybe talk for about 1 minute
o Actor 2 – Peer coach: The other person will be the peer coach. Your job is to use
your skills to provide helpful listening and feedback to your peer.
▪ Try to use these skills:
• While the kid is talking, use your Attending skills
• When they’re done talking
o Paraphrase and/or Reflect
o Praise the kid for something insightful they said, or just for
coming forward to try to problem-solve
• After those skills are used, then consider giving suggestions or
advice
▪ And please don’t just tell the person stuff that you think adults want to
hear. Make it helpful and responsible advice, but make sure it’s something
that you could actually say.
o You’ll have 2 minutes for the whole thing

• [Facilitator either chooses one of the 5 vignettes or the pair. Or facilitator lets the coach
actor select]
• [Once done, the kids should switch roles]
• [Depending on how many youth are involved, maybe one can be the director]

Break (5 minutes)

Exercise 2: Student Generated Coaching Examples (15-20 min)
• OK, now we’re going to do something similar, but this time using real-world examples
that you’ve seen or heard about.
• How many of you have friends who are having problems at school? That can include
cutting class or school, getting in arguments with teachers, fighting with other kids,
disrupting the classroom, or other problems

59

o [If facilitator has better examples, feel free to list those].
• OK think about 1 good example. Without giving any names, and not focusing on anyone
in this group, describe the main school-related problem that your friend is having.
o [Go around and have everyone give one example]
• Now, in front of the camera, first take on the role of the kid who’s having trouble. THEN
take on the role of peer coach

• First, pretend you’re the kid who engaged in the behavior. In front of the camera, pretend
you’re talking with the peer coach after the event occurred and explain what happened
from your perspective
o Talk for about 1 minute
• After doing this, change character & pretend you’re the peer coach. In front of the
camera, use your skills to provide helpful listening and feedback to your peer.
o Again, try to use these skills:
▪ Obviously you can’t use your Attending skills in this exercise
▪ However, do use your other skills, including:
• Paraphrasing and/or Reflecting
• Praise the kid for something insightful they said, or just for coming
forward to try to problem-solve
▪ After those skills are used, then consider giving suggestions or advice
• Take about 2 minutes total for each skit

HW – Task for Next Week (5 min)
• We have an assignment for you for next week. We want you to use your skills to help one
of your peers who is having a school-related problem.
• [Distribute Task Sheet to students & Explain to them]
• [Go around and ask each whether they have someone in mind (or more than one person).
If not, troubleshoot with them]
• [Explain contingency – what will have if everyone returns assignment vs. most vs. few]
• [Explain how Katie will check in with texts]

------------------------------------------------End of Session---------------------------------------------------

60

PCT Session 5: Final Coaching Session (50 minutes)

Intro
• Greet everyone and briefly note:
o It’s nice seeing everyone again [say everyone’s name]
o Again, this session will only be about 50 minutes

Review of Group Rules (5 mins)
• [Show Powerpoint slide]
• Let’s quickly review the group rules again
• Cell phones in the basket at all times during group. We’ll let you have them during our
brief break so you can check them. We know it can be tempting to be on your phone in
the middle of group, for us too – so we’re all going to put our phones in this basket so we
make sure that everyone is focused and on the same page.
o Exception – instructors might have to use for emergencies and/or for filming.
• Vegas Rule – What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas – we want everyone to feel free to
share whatever they want to in here – so we expect everyone will respect each other’s
privacy
o Exception: if we hear of child abuse or elderly abuse, if any of you seriously
expresses a desire to harm yourself or someone else – we will have to tell
someone. But we will come talk to you privately before we tell anyone so you
know what’s going on.
• The platinum rule: treat everyone the way they want to be treated – be respectful
• Microphone rule – only one person talks at a time (aside from when we do the skits,
which we’ll explain shortly)
• Leave class only with permission
• Respect the space - No throwing things, climbing, etc.

Things to Remember [for facilitator only]
• Try to praise kids throughout for large and small acts of appropriate participation
• When a youth is misbehaving or engaging improperly, try to use as an opportunity to
engage other participants to use their skills to help the youth

Peer Coaching Skills Review (5-10 min)
• Let’s do a quick review of the skills you’ve learned and that you’ve been using.
• Again, the whole purpose is to bring these skills together to motivate your friends and
classmates when they’re facing problems

• The 3 skills so far are these:
o Giving & receiving praise
▪ [Show the Powerpoint slide]
o Constructive feedback
▪ [Show the Powerpoint slide]

61

o Focused listening
▪ [Show the Powerpoint slide]

Homework Review (~10 min)
• [For all who completed the HW, review then collect the HW sheets. If they didn’t fill out,
just have them review what they did. If they didn’t do at all, have them act out the steps]
o If everyone brought in, wait to give movie tickets til end. Give out sodas if 2/3
gave tix.
• OK, let’s review the peer coaching that you all did since our last session 2 weeks ago.
• [Show Powerpoint slide]
• We asked you to use your peer coaching skills to help a friend or classmate who was
having problems/difficulties at your school. We wanted you to say:
o What your peer’s problems were
o What you said or did to help, and
o How the they responded – In other words, what they said or did
• So let’s go around and have everyone quickly answer each of these.
• [After each youth presents, give specific praise to them as a model. Then call on another
youth to also give specific praise]

Break (5 minutes)

Exercise: Student Generated Coaching Examples (20 mins)
• OK, similar to what we did last week, focus on a friend or two with problems at school.
That can include cutting class or school, getting in arguments with teachers, fighting with
other kids, disrupting the classroom, or other problems
o [If facilitator has better examples, feel free to list those].
• Now think about 1 good example that’s different from the one you gave earlier. Without
giving any names, and not focusing on anyone in this group, describe the school-related
problem that your friend is having.
o [Go around and have everyone give one example]
• Now, in front of the camera, first take on the role of the kid who’s having trouble. THEN
take on the role of peer coach
• [If any youth is unable or unwilling to come up with own example, use one of the
vignettes we’ve already prepped!]

• First, pretend you’re the kid who engaged in the behavior. In front of the camera, pretend
you’re talking with the peer coach after the event occurred and explain what happened
from your perspective
o Talk for about 1 minute
• After doing this, change character & pretend you’re the peer coach. In front of the
camera, use your skills to provide helpful listening and feedback to your peer.
o Again, try to use these skills:
▪ Obviously you can’t use your Attending skills in this exercise

62

▪ However, do use your other skills, including:
• Paraphrasing and/or Reflecting
• Praise the kid for something insightful they said, or just for coming
forward to try to problem-solve
▪ After those skills are used, then consider giving suggestions or advice
• Take about 2 minutes total for this
• [Depending on how many youth are involved, maybe one can be the director]

Video (8 mins)
[Watch video as group. Facilitator to have video readily available.]

HW – Task for Next Few Weeks (5 min)
• We want you to keep using your skills to help one or more of your peers who is having a
school-related problem.
• [Go around and ask each whether they have someone in mind (or more than one person).
If not, troubleshoot with them]
• [Explain how Katie will check in with texts over the next few weeks]

WRAP UP (2 mins)
• Thank you all for being SUCH GREAT peer coaches
• Now it’s time for you to use what you learned in here and bring it to the outside world to
make a positive impact on your friends and even beyond – maybe if you help your friends
they’ll be more likely to help other people that you might not even know, etc.
• You can get them to act better and in ways that will be better for them in the long run
• Thank you all again and always feel free to reach out if you have any questions!!

------------------------------------------------End of Session---------------------------------------------------

63

Task #1: Giving and Receiving Praise

Name: __________________________________
1. Give some Praise or Positive Feedback to your mom or dad. Write down exactly what
you said and what your mom or dad said and did.
a. What did you say?
_____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
b. What did your mom or dad say and
do?_______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________
2. Give some Praise to a friend or one of your brothers or sisters. Write down exactly what
you said and what the other person said and did.
a. What did you say?
_________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
b. What did the other person say and do?
__________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________
3. Write down some Praise that someone gave to you. Write down exactly what they said
and what you said and did.
a. What did the other person say?__________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________
b. What did you say and
do?_______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

64

4. Why is it important to thank someone for giving you Praise or Positive Feedback?
a. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
____________
b. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
____________
c. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
____________
d. __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
____________

65

Task #2: Giving and Receiving Constructive Feedback
Name
1. What are three things you should do when giving someone a suggestion on how to improve?
a. _______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
b. _______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
c. _______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
2. Tell about a problem you had with someone at home or school this week.
a. What was the problem?____________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
b. What was something nice that you said?________________________________________-
________
_______________________________________________________________________________
c. What was the suggestion for improvement that you gave?_________________________-
_________
_______________________________________________________________________________
d. What did the other person do or say?___________________________ ______________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
3. When you give someone a suggestion on how to improve, why is it important to first say something nice?
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
4. Tell about a time this week when your mom, dad, teacher or some other adult gave you a suggestion for
improvement.
a. What was the person’s suggestion for improvement?__________________
____________________
______________________________________________________________________________

66

b. What did you do or
say?____________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Task #3: Focused Listening, Part I
Name: __________________________________
1. What are 4 or 5 things you should do when using Attending skills?
a. _______________________________________________________________________________
b. _______________________________________________________________________________
c. _______________________________________________________________________________
d. _______________________________________________________________________________
e. _______________________________________________________________________________
2. What are 3 things you should do when using Reflecting skills?
a. _______________________________________________________________________________
b. _______________________________________________________________________________
c. _______________________________________________________________________________
3. Use one or more of your focused listening skills (i.e., Attending, Paraphrasing,
Reflecting) with your mom or dad. Write down what you did and what your mom or dad
said and did.
a. Which skills did you
use?___________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
______
b. What happened? How did your mom or dad
respond?_____________________________
__________________________________________________________________
_____

67

4. Use one or more of your focused listening skills with a friend or one of your brothers or
sisters. Write down what you did and how the other person responded.
a. Which skills did you
use?___________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
______
b. What happened? How did the other person
respond?_____________________________
__________________________________________________________________
_____

68

Task #4: Peer Coach Orientation
Name: __________________________________
1. What are 3 or 4 things you should do when giving praise to others?
a. _______________________________________________________________________________
b. _______________________________________________________________________________
c. _______________________________________________________________________________
2. What are 3 or 4 things you should do when giving constructive feedback (i.e., suggestions on how to
improve)?
a. _______________________________________________________________________________
b. _______________________________________________________________________________
c. _______________________________________________________________________________
3. What are 4 or 5 things you should do when using Attending skills?
a. _______________________________________________________________________________
b. _______________________________________________________________________________
c. _______________________________________________________________________________
d. _______________________________________________________________________________
e. _______________________________________________________________________________
4. What are 3 things you should do when using Reflecting skills?
a. _______________________________________________________________________________
b. _______________________________________________________________________________
c. _______________________________________________________________________________
5. Use your peer coaching skills (i.e., Praise, Constructive Feedback, Attending,
Paraphrasing, Reflecting) to help a peer (e.g., friend, classmate) who is having
problems/difficulties at your school. Write down what the peer’s problems are, what you
said or did, and what your peer said or did.
a. What problems are they having at
school?_______________________________________

69

__________________________________________________________________
______
b. Which skills did you
use?___________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
______
c. What happened? How did your peer
respond?____________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
_____

70

Appendix B

Teacher Daily Behavior Tracking Data Sheet
Please input the number of times (either actual number or a tally) your PCT student engaged in
disruptive behaviors in class today next to the prompts below:

Was the student in class today? Yes or No

Get out of their seat without permission (in a way that was disruptive to class):

Fight with classmates (verbal):

Fight with classmates (physical):

Yell:

Talk out of turn:

Talk back to you:

Not follow instructions:

Make inappropriate comments:

Leave class without permission to do so:

Rude to you (teacher):

Rude or antagonistic toward classmates:

How many times did the PCT student engage in any other kind of disruptive behavior (not listed
above) in class today? Please specify the type and the number of times they engaged in these
behaviors.

71

How many times did the student engage in any of the following prosocial behaviors in class
today?

Help other students with classroom assignments:

Participate in classroom discussion in a productive way:

Encourage peers to pay attention and/or follow directions:

How many times did the PCT student engage in any other kind of positive, prosocial behavior in
class today? Please specify the type and the number of times they engaged in these behaviors.

Any other comments about the student’s behavior today?

Asset Metadata

Creator Galbraith, Katharine (author)

Core Title Peer Coach Training for disruptive youth

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 07/27/2020

Defense Date 04/28/2020

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

Tag at-risk youth,conduct problems,disruptive behavior,OAI-PMH Harvest,school discipline,school-based intervention

Language English

Advisor Huey, Stanley (committee chair), John, Richard (committee member), Schwartz, David (committee member)

Creator Email katharig@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-342322

Unique identifier UC11665979

Identifier etd-GalbraithK-8779.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-342322 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GalbraithK-8779.pdf

Dmrecord 342322

Document Type Thesis

Rights Galbraith, Katharine

Type texts

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

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In California schools, disruptive behavior is by far the primary reason for disciplinary referrals, including suspensions and expulsions. School-based interventions targeting disruptive behavior usually position struggling youth as treatment recipients and neglect the psychosocial benefits of helping others (e.g., Eskreis-Winkler, Fishbach, & Duckworth, 2018). In this study, we evaluate the feasibility and preliminary impact of Peer Coach Training (PCT), a novel, school-based intervention for youth referred for disruptive behavior. PCT takes a counterintuitive approach to remediating disruptive behavior that deemphasizes the youth’s existing problems and focuses instead on training youth to help their peers. We used a multiple baseline design and pre-post design to evaluate the preliminary effects of PCT on two cohorts of disruptive youth (N=9) in an urban, middle school in Lynwood, CA. Teachers tracked each youth’s behavior on a daily basis for several days prior to the start of the intervention until a week post-intervention. Youth and teachers were also asked to complete assessments at baseline, the first day of the intervention (pre-treatment), and post-treatment. TAU-U analyses of teachers’ daily tracking behavior indicated no significant changes in disruptive behavior or prosocial behavior over the course of PCT, although several methodological challenges (e.g., missing tracking data due to student and teacher absence, failure to report by teachers) qualify this finding. Friedman’s ANOVAs of the youth assessment data indicated significant reductions in youth self-report of externalizing problems, conduct problems, attention problems, and aggressive behavior from baseline to posttreatment