Cited by 12Problem Solving Skills DevelopmentCrime Patterns and InterventionsPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending

Effectiveness of a social problem solving training in youth in detention or on probation: an RCT and pre-post community implementation

Open access
Hein, Sascha, Weeland, Joyce, Square, Amanda, Haeffel, Gerald J., Chapman, John, Macomber, Donna, Lee, Maria, Foley Geib, Catherine +1 more·2020·International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

Abstract

The effectiveness of a 10-session social problem-solving training (SPST) was evaluated in two independent studies in a juvenile justice (JJ) setting. In both studies, we aimed to examine main intervention effects on social problem-solving skills and recidivism, as well as differential effects as modulated by anger, anger regulation, and single nucleotide polymorphisms in the COMT gene. In Study 1, a randomized controlled trial (RCT), 289 male detainees (M age= 14.95 years) were randomly assigned to SPST or treatment-as-usual (TAU). In Study 2, a pre-post community implementation, 187 youth (M age = 16.03 years) on probation were assessed before and after SPST. No significant main effects of SPST on social problem solving or recidivism were shown in either study. With regard to differential effects, among youth in detention,COMT haplotypes predicted intervention effects on state anger. Moreover, independent of SPST, inward anger expression was associated with an increase in state anger from pre- to post and an increase in state anger with a decrease in social problem solving. Among youth on probation, COMT haplotypes predicted social problem-solving skills, and, in turn, an increase in social problem-solving skills decreased the odds of recidivism after SPST. The lack of main effects of SPST may be due to low program integrity in JJ settings. Juveniles' emotional and genetic characteristics might modulate the effectiveness of interventions in JJ settings. We recommend studying large samples to substantiate this observation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101626

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Two studies contributed disproportionately to the pooled effect, identified using influence analyses in all randomised controlled trials.

    “Two studies49, 74 that contributed disproportionately to the pooled effect were identified using influence analyses in all RCTs.”

    From Effectiveness of psychological interventions in prison to reduce recidivism: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (2021) · cites this paper as [49]

    Section 8.1 (Participants; page unavailable) confirms that this paper reports a randomized trial, so the citation identifies a relevant RCT. The paper does not report an influence analysis across RCTs or establish that its study contributed disproportionately to a pooled effect; searches for those terms returned only analyses within this study. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 74 · Cited by 12

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus Version 7.4. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. National Institute of Justice (2019). CrimeSolutions.gov. accessed August 22, 2019). Retrieved from https://www.crimesolutions.gov/Programs.aspx. · DOI

Authors
Hein, S., Weeland, J., Square, A., Haeffel, G. J., Chapman, J., Macomber, D., Lee, M., Foley Geib, C., & Grigorenko, E. L.
Affiliations
  • Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
  • Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of Notre Dame (US)
  • State of Connecticut Judicial Branch (US)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Grigorenko, Elena L.
Venue
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-09
Volume
72
Pages
101626
ISSN
0160-2527 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3083734919
Cited by
12
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Justice
  • Institute of Education Sciences
  • American Psychological Foundation
  • Yale School of Medicine
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Problem Solving Skills Development
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Keywords
juvenile justice, juvenile detention, probation, recidivism, anger regulation, state anger, COMT gene, single nucleotide polymorphisms, social problem-solving skills, program integrity, community implementation
MeSH terms
Recidivism, Adolescent, Anger, Catechol O-Methyltransferase, Child, Female, Haplotypes, Humans, Juvenile Delinquency, Male, Problem Solving, Program Evaluation, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review