Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40287180›Full record

Trial reportBehavior therapy2025

Beyond Jacobson and Truax: Estimation of Clinical Significance Trajectories in the Coping Power Intervention Using Measurement Error-Corrected Multilevel Modeling.

Antonio A Morgan-López, Lissette M Saavedra, Heather L McDaniel, Stephen G West, Nicholas S Ialongo, Catherine P Bradshaw, Alexandra T Tonigan, Barrett W Montgomery, Nicole P Powell, Lixin Qu and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Behavior therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Antonio A Morgan-LópezRTI International. Electronic address: amorganlopez@rti.org.
Lissette M SaavedraRTI International.
Heather L McDanielUniversity of Virginia.
Stephen G WestArizona State University and Freie Universität Berlin.
Nicholas S IalongoJohns Hopkins University.
Catherine P BradshawUniversity of Virginia and Johns Hopkins University.
Alexandra T ToniganRTI International and University of New Mexico.
Barrett W MontgomeryRTI International.
Nicole P PowellUniversity of Alabama.
Lixin QuUniversity of Alabama.
Anna C YarosRTI International.
John E LochmanUniversity of Alabama.

Funding

Individual and Group Intervention Formats with Aggressive ChildrenR01DA023156 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN TUSCALOOSA · PI LOCHMAN, JOHN E · 2008 to 2012
$3.5M
Natural disaster effects on aggressive children and their caretakers: Outcomes across timeR01HD079273 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN TUSCALOOSA · PI LOCHMAN, JOHN E, VERNBERG, ERIC M · 2013 to 2017
$2.2M
Integrative Data Analysis of Coping Power: Effects on Adolescent SuicidalityR01MH124438 · NIMH · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE · PI LOCHMAN, JOHN E, MORGAN-LOPEZ, ANTONIO A · 2020 to 2022
$1.7M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD079273NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA023156NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH124438
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coping Power (CP) is a preventive intervention that focuses on reducing child externalizing problems. Although it is typically delivered in a group format (GCP), individually delivered CP (ICP) has produced greater mean reductions in externalizing problems. However, standard analysis of randomized trials loses individual-level information regarding which youth improve, fail to improve, or get worse, whereas clinically significant change (CSC) metrics capture information on individual change. The present study is a secondary analysis of an ICP/GCP trial (N = 360) that examines differences in CSC-based individual-level inferences on externalizing. A novel method for assessing CSC under measurement error-corrected multilevel modeling was used, overcoming three limitations of traditional CSC methods: (a) restriction to two time points, (b) use of total scores, and (c) assumption of constant reliability across time and participants. Because of concerns about Type II errors with all CSC methods, an individual-level effect size metric for CSC was also developed. Based on individualized Cohen's d estimates, individual-level improvements in externalizing from 4th through 11th grades of d ≥ 0.5 were significantly greater in ICP (73%) versus GCP (45%). Further, GCP saw significantly higher percentages of youth with worsening of externalizing, underscoring concerns about diminished effects for GCP. Half of the sample had improvement that was not statistically significant but exceeded d ≥ 0.5, highlighting the susceptibility to Type II errors of CSC's results based on statistical significance. An examination of ICP/GCP differences under advanced CSC analysis gives more nuanced information than conventional randomized controlled trial analysis and greater precision in estimating individual-level outcomes than standard CSC methodologies.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalBehavior TherapyAdolescentChildClinical RelevanceFemaleHumansMaleMultilevel AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsClinical significanceConduct problemsItem response theoryMultilevel modeling

Identifiers

PMID40287180
PMCPMC12033388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.