|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study by Arbuthnot and Gordon was to assess the behavioral as well as the cognitive effects of a sociomoral reasoning development program for high-risk behavior-disordered adolescents and to ascertain the effects of such intervention.
METHODOLOGY:
The study was quasi-experimental. The authors hypothesized that adolescents at risk for juvenile delinquency would benefit both cognitively and behaviorally from an intervention designed to accelerate moral reasoning development. Accordingly, the authors specifically hypothesized that such a program could possibly produce a significant advance in moral reasoning as well as a significant behavioral improvement on teacher evaluations of behavior. Also, they hypothesized that tardiness, school disciplinary actions, police and court contacts, and absenteeism would decrease, while academic performance would significantly improve.
The forty-eight participants were thirty-five male and thirteen female Caucasian youths, ranging in age from thirteen to seventeen. The students were chosen from four school systems in one rural county. All were students who were referred by teachers to being "behavior disordered" on the basis of histories of socially unacceptable behavior patterns that were conducive to "high risk" for delinquency behavior. A comparison group was also selected by having the participating teachers also choosing a student in the same class who was considered by the teacher to be a non-behavior-disordered youth. A comparison group of thirty-two students was produced.
The teachers rated each nominee on a behavior rating scale (the School Adjustment Index (SAI)) which was developed specifically for this study. The SAI consisted of forty-four items pertaining to normal behaviors, attitudes, and traits. The form was filled out by the teachers, who indicated observation frequency incidence for individual items on the index.
The forty-eight behavioral-disordered students were ranked on the basis of their SAI scores and then paired. One individual from each pair was assigned to the treatment group, the other to the nontreatment control group.
The Kohlberg Moral Judgement Interview was orally administered to the participants in various phases of the test period.
Students in the treatment groups attended moral dilemma discussion sessions for one class period of forty-five minutes each week for sixteen to twenty weeks. Several sessions consisted of role playing prepared or spontaneous situations involving open-ended moral dilemmas. Two sessions were spent on active listening and communication skills (an unplanned diversion from dilemma discussions necessitated by the participants' general lack of these skills which early on appeared to impede effective discussions).
During the final weeks of classes, teachers completed the SAI ratings again and archival data were obtained from school and court records. This provided a basis for data analysis in comparing pre and post participation in the intervention.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
No significant differences on any of the outcome measures were found when multivariate analyses of variance was used. Also, the treatment and control groups that were evaluated by teachers did not show any differential effects. However, the stage of sociomoral reasoning, as measured by Kohlberg's moral maturity score (MMS) displayed an increase for the treatment group whereas the control group experienced a small decline. Referrals to the school office for behavior problems showed a highly significant difference for the groups, where the treatment group possessed nearly zero referrals, and the control group had a slight increase in them. After treatment, grade point averages for humanities and the social sciences showed a significant difference with the grades of the treatment group improved, while the control group's grades worsened. Also, the average recorded contact rate with police or juvenile court showed a significant difference between the two groups. The treatment group's contact with police or juvenile court declined to almost zero, while the control group displayed a slight increase.
Follow-up data were obtained for twenty-two students in two of the four original schools. At the follow-up, Kohlberg's MMSs remained significantly different favoring the treatment group. Control group students continued to possess significantly greater numbers of referrals to the school office concerning disciplinary misbehavior. In addition, treatment group participants experienced lower rates of absenteeism. Follow-up data exhibited no significant differences between groups regarding recorded police or court contacts, where both groups experienced no contacts.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors recommended that future research be employed in order to examine if any personological and/or social situational factors contributed to sustained development in cognitive and behavioral changes. Also, the authors argued that a more sensitive measure for misbehavior in the community was needed as well as a longer follow-up period. The authors recommended that future research should examine two types of attentional control groups: a) discussion of nonmoral nondilemmas, and b) discussion of nonmoral dilemmas requiring development of higher order thinking skills. They noted that future efforts would be worth directing toward exploration of quantifiable group leader characteristics and behaviors to assess the impact of such skills on group and individual outcomes. Finally, the authors concluded that interventions that systematically include the development of capacities for roletaking or empathy, supportive family environments, social skills, and motivation or caring might be desirable in developing the most effective treatment strategies for behavior-disordered youth.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
KW - Delinquency Prevention
KW - Prevention Program
KW - Intervention Program
KW - Juvenile Delinquency
KW - Early Adolescence
KW - Late Adolescence
KW - At Risk Juvenile
KW - At Risk Youth
KW - Cognitive Behavioral
KW - Juvenile Development
KW - Juvenile Offender
KW - Moral Development
KW - Moral Reasoning
KW - Juvenile Problem Behavior
KW - Prosocial Attitudes and Behavior
KW - Social Skills Development
KW - Juvenile Aggression
KW - Behavior Intervention
KW - Aggression Intervention |