Trial reportPrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2025
Can Peer Acceptance and Perceptual Accuracy Impact the Effectiveness of Two Formats of a Preventative Intervention on Functional Subtypes of Aggression in Youth?
Trial report in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Introduction to the Special Issue: Prevention Science and Youth Conduct Problems: Development, Prevention, and Treatment.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2025Article
- The Multiple Avenues of Contribution of Robert McMahon to Prevention Science.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coping Power (CP) is an empirically supported school-based intervention for children at risk for aggression. A child's social status with peers and the extent to which they accurately perceive it are important aspects of preadolescent social development that may influence how intervention format affects disruptive behavior outcomes. Further, reactive (RA) and proactive (PA) functional subtypes of aggression have differential relations with peer acceptance. This study is the first to test whether the effects of group (GCP) and individual (ICP) format of CP on RA and PA differed based on children's actual social status (aim 1) and whether they over- or underestimated their acceptance relative to their actual social status (perceptual accuracy; aim 2). This study involved secondary data analyses using a large-scale randomized controlled trial that assigned 360 children ages 9 to 11 (M = 9.74, SD = .62), predominantly male (n = 234, 65%), and Black (n = 273, 75.8%), with elevated levels of aggression to either ICP or GCP condition. Polynomial regression analyses and three-dimensional response surface plots tested and probed significant (p < .05) interactions between either actual acceptance or perceptual accuracy and intervention format on postintervention reactive and proactive aggression. Actual acceptance moderated the effects of GCP on RA, such that those with higher acceptance showed smaller reductions in RA from either preintervention or postintervention to follow-up. Perceptual accuracy also moderated the effects of ICP on PA, with those underestimating their acceptance showing smaller decreases in PA from postintervention to follow-up. These findings provide valuable insights into how children's actual peer acceptance and perceptual accuracy influence CP outcomes for different functional subtypes of aggression based on intervention format, raising important questions about potential mechanisms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39806163What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.