Journal of School Psychology

41 (2003) 143 – 164

Raising healthy children through enhancing

social development in elementary school:
Results after 1.5 years
Richard F. Catalano a,*, James J. Mazzab, Tracy W. Harachia,
Robert D. Abbottb, Kevin P. Haggertya, Charles B. Fleminga
a
Social Development Research Group, University of Washington School of Social Work,
9725 3rd Avenue Northeast, Suite 401, Seattle, WA 98115-2024, USA
b
Educational Psychology, University of Washington, Box 353600, Seattle, WA 98115-3600, USA
Received 16 May 2002; received in revised form 31 July 2002; accepted 31 July 2002

Abstract

This study examined results of a comprehensive, multifaceted longitudinal school-based

prevention program called Raising Healthy Children (RHC). RHC focuses on enhancing protective
factors with the goal of promoting positive youth development, reducing identified risk factors, and
preventing adolescent problem behaviors. Participants included 938 elementary students from first or
second grade who were enrolled in 10 area schools in the Pacific Northwest and randomly divided into
two groups, those receiving RHC and peer controls. Analyses were conducted 18 months after
implementation and focused on academic and behavioral improvements within the school
environment. Results using hierarchical linear modeling showed that RHC students, compared to
their peers who did not receive the intervention, had significantly higher teacher-reported academic
performance (t ratio = 2.27, p < .001) and a stronger commitment to school (t ratio = 2.16, p < .03).
Similarly, teachers reported that RHC students showed a significant decrease in antisocial behaviors (t
ratio = 2.43, p < .02) and increased social competency (t ratio = 2.96, p < .01) compared to control
peers. Regression results from parent-reported outcomes also showed that RHC students had higher
academic performance, b=.082, t = 2.72, p < .01 and a stronger commitment to school, b=.080, t = 2.45,
p < .02. Results from this study and their implications for early and long-term prevention are discussed.
D 2003 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.

Keywords: School-based prevention intervention

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: catalano@u.washington.edu (R.F. Catalano).

0022-4405/03/$ - see front matter D 2003 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00031-1
144 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164

Introduction

In the past 10 years, there has been an increasing focus on developing early prevention
programs for elementary students that cover a wide array of topics including violence
(Greenberg & Kusche, 1998; Grossman, Neckerman, & Rivara, 1997), drug prevention
(Botvin, Baker, Dusenbury, Botvin, & Diaz, 1995; Hawkins, Catalano, Kosterman,
Abbott, & Hill, 1999), social skills training (Embry, Flannery, Vazsonyi, Powell, & Atha,
1996), and academic skill enhancement (Slavin, 1988; Slavin et al., 1994; Stage,
Sheppard, Davidson, & Browning, 2001). These programs hypothesize that early
prevention will help reduce the likelihood of more chronic and difficult adolescent
problem behaviors, such as school dropout, drug use, and chronic mental health problems.
Although these programs tend to focus on one specific area of prevention, longitudinal
results suggest multidimensional benefits (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group
[CPPRG], 1999; Grossman et al., 1997; Hawkins et al., 1999; Hawkins, Guo, Hill, Battin-
Pearson, & Abbott, 2001). Thus, from a prereferral and psychological services standpoint,
these programs provide a powerful strategy that benefits the school community while
helping to reduce problematic behaviors in adolescents.
The antisocial behavior domain is one area of concern that has received significant
attention (Aber, Jones, Brown, Chaudry, & Samples, 1998; CPPRG, 1999; Greenberg &
Kusche, 1998; Kellam, Ling, Merisca, Brown, & Ialongo, 1998; Kellam, Rebok, Ialongo,
& Mayer, 1994). Without intervention, early antisocial behavior has been shown to have a
high degree of continuity when present during the early elementary years for both girls and
boys (Cote, Zoccolillo, Tremblay, Nagin, & Vitaro, 2001; Tremblay, Pihl, Vitaro, &
Dobkin, 1994). The spectrum of antisocial behaviors is quite wide (Loeber et al., 1993;
Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994; Webster-Stratton, 1992) and is not limited to the diagnostic
criteria that define oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder. Although significant
changes in such behavior have been reported (Webster-Stratton, 1992), research examining
these more severe forms of antisocial behavior in children and adolescents has shown that
these behaviors are resistant to significant change longitudinally (Beelmann, Pfingsten, &
Loesel, 1994; Coie, Underwood, & Lochman, 1991; Rutter, 1996) and are often precursors
to other antisocial behaviors and chronic mental health problems (Cole, Martin, Powers, &
Truglio, 1996; Hymel, Rubin, Rowden, & LeMare, 1990; Rutter, 1996; Welsh, Parke,
Widaman, & O’Neil, 2001). In addition, some treatment approaches have been costly and
are often plagued by high rates of relapse or recidivism (Jenson, Hawkins, & Catalano,
1986; Surgeon General, 1988). Antisocial behavior has been also associated longitudinally
with substance use (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992) and school dropout (Battin-
Pearson et al., 2000; Newcomb et al., 2002).
The majority of programs developed in the 1980s focused on a single problem
behavior, on risk reduction, and only addressed a few risk factors at a particular
developmental period, usually early and late adolescence, and thus, were less likely to
focus on protective factors (Hawkins et al., 1992; Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994; Weissberg &
Greenberg, 1998). Over time this single focused approach, narrow range of risk factors
addressed, and lack of focus on protective factors came under increasing criticism from
practitioners and prevention scientists (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins,
1999). Reviews of effective programs suggest that the most effective approaches address
 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164 145

multiple factors and both promote positive behavior as well as reduce antisocial behavior
(Catalano, Haggerty, Gainey, Hoppe, & Brewer, 1998). Research from related fields has
shown that reducing risk factors while concurrently enhancing protective factors reduces
adolescent antisocial behavior (Coie et al., 1993; Hawkins et al., 1999; Hawkins et al.,
1992; Kellam & Rebok, 1992; Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994).
Several programs in the past 10 years have focused on reducing antisocial behaviors by
focusing on the prosocial and social competence side of the behavior continuum (Aber et
al., 1998; CPPRG, 1999; Frey, Hirschstein, & Guzzo, 2000; Greenberg & Kusche, 1998;
Seattle Social Development Research Project [SSDP]: Hawkins et al., 1999). Programs
such as PATHS, Second Step, and Conflict Resolution have targeted elementary students
and the promotion of prosocial activities and behaviors in the hope of preventing conduct
problems and reducing violence (Frey et al., 2000). The PATHS program (part of the Fast
Track model), a curriculum-based universal prevention program, has increased student
self-control and on-task behaviors while reducing aggression among first graders (CPPRG,
1999). Similarly, Second Step, a curriculum-based program, is aimed at reducing social,
emotional, and behavioral problems and enhancing positive interactions (Frey et al.,
2000). Results showed that students in Second Step classrooms significantly decreased
their physically aggressive behaviors while increasing their prosocial and neutral inter-
actions from autumn to spring; control students showed an increase in physically
aggressive behaviors and no change in prosocial behavior during the same time period
(Grossman et al., 1997). The SSDP (Hawkins et al., 1999), a teacher –parent combined
program that focuses on academic progress and reducing antisocial behavior, has shown
short-term effectiveness in increased academic performance and reduced violent behavior,
and long-term success in decreasing violent acts, heavy alcohol use, and risky sexual
practices (Hawkins et al., 1999). Long-term (age 18) results also showed that students
receiving SSDP were performing better academically, were more committed and attached
to school, and were less likely to misbehave at school compared to control students.
These programs are not without limitations. First, the generalizability of these programs
is an important implementation issue. These programs require complex trainings, multiple
school personnel, and strong administrative support. Second, many of these programs are
curriculum-based which is a strength and a limitation. These scripted programs help
teachers with program consistency across settings, however, implementation fidelity issues
and the need for multiple trainings and weekly consultations to ensure fidelity may be time
consuming for teachers. Third, most of the programs have been evaluated on short-term
content factors (1 year or less) (CPPRG, 1999), neglecting the long-term preventive impact
on prosocial behaviors and chronic mental health problems (for an exception, see Hawkins
et al., 1999). Fourth, many of these programs focus on a single age-cohort of youngsters.
For example, SSDP trained only teachers at the grade level which had study subjects, and
did not attempt to change practices school-wide (Abbott et al., 1998; Hawkins et al.,
1999).
This article provides a description of the design and early outcomes of a comprehensive
primary prevention program, Raising Healthy Children (RHC), that replicates and extends
the intervention of the SSDP, but focuses more on institutionalizing practices school-wide.
The RHC program is based on the social development model (SDM; Catalano & Hawkins,
1996) and is a universal preventive intervention program focused on reducing antisocial
146 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164

behaviors while enhancing prosocial behaviors. The long-term aim of the program is to
increase academic success and reduce adolescent antisocial behavior and chronic mental
health problems. The program is multifaceted, includes teachers, parents, and students, and
is designed to influence developmentally appropriate risk and protective factors in the
family, school, peer, and individual domains.
The SDM (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996) hypothesizes that during the elementary school
years, children learn patterns of behavior from socializing units of family and school, with
peers playing an increasing role as children get older. Socialization, according to the SDM,
involves four sequential principles:

1. Perceived opportunities for involvement in activities and interactions with others,

2. The actual degree of involvement and interactions,
3. The skills to participate successfully in these interactions and activities,
4. The reinforcement perceived from these interactions and activities.

When socializing processes are consistent, a social bond develops between the child
and the socializing unit. This social bond in turn inhibits behaviors inconsistent with the
beliefs held by the socialization unit and encourages behaviors that are consistent with
those beliefs. If those to whom a child is bonded hold prosocial norms clearly opposed to
the problem behaviors, these bonds are expected to promote positive youth development
and consequently inhibit problem behaviors. On the other hand, individuals who develop
bonds to drug-using, violent, or criminally involved family, peers, or school personnel are
expected to be encouraged to engage in problem behavior. It is hypothesized that both
types of forces are influential, and the individual’s behavior depends on which of these
influences predominates. Thus, the focus of the RHC intervention strategies are, in
general, to support and enhance the four processes of socialization within families,
classrooms, and peer groups, while simultaneously promoting prosocial development in
these socializing units.
This study examined the 18-month effectiveness of the RHC intervention strategies.
The 18-month time frame provides a glimpse into the early effectiveness of the RHC
intervention, while at the same time providing school psychologists and school personnel
with updated research information focused on promoting prosocial behaviors in elemen-
tary students. This multifaceted evaluation included parent, teacher, and student outcome
measures expected to be sensitive to program effect. In addition, gender differences were
analyzed to examine whether the RHC intervention was more effective for one gender than
the other.

Methods

Participants

The study included suburban public school children in first and second grade in 10
elementary schools. The 10 schools were paired on SES and attendance patterns. One
member of each pair was randomly assigned to the experimental or treatment-as-usual
 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164 147

control condition. The criteria for child eligibility included having a parent who spoke
English, Spanish, Vietnamese, or Korean and attended a regular first- or second-grade
classroom. In the fall of Year 1, active consent letters were sent to eligible families. After
receiving the advance letter, each family was approached through a home visit and invited
to participate in the project. Of the 1239 eligible first- and second-grade students, 938
(76%) consented to participate with 497 in program schools and 441 in control schools.
Fifty-five percent of the experimental students and 51.5% of the control students are male.
Forty-four percent of the control families and 32.6% of the experimental families qualified
for public assistance and/or free/reduced lunch program. Eighty-two percent of the
experimental students and 80.3% of the control students are European American, 8.5%
of the experimental students and 5.9% of the control students are Asian, 4% of the
experimental students and 5% of the control students are African American, 3% of the
experimental students and 5.2% of the control students are Hispanic, and 2.4% of the
experimental students and 3.6% of the control students are Native American.

Data collection

Data were collected four times during the 1.5-year period. The first set of data was
collected prior to the intervention in December and January of Year 1 and was used as
baseline. The second set of data was collected during the spring of Year 1, and the third
and fourth sets were collected during the fall and spring of Year 2, respectively.

Classroom teachers
Classroom teachers completed a student behavior checklist on each participating
student in Year 1 at baseline (December– January) and again at the end of the school
year (May –June). Teachers also completed student behavior checklists in the fall and
spring of Year 2 when the students were in the second and third grades. Completion rates
were high, ranging from 95% to 99.8%. Only participants with completed teacher-reported
baseline checklists and follow-up (n = 908, 96.8%) were used for the data analyses.
Teachers were compensated at their district hourly rate for completing the surveys.

Parents
Data from parents were collected via a telephone interview lasting about 45 minutes in
the winter of Year 1 as a baseline measure. Parents were again interviewed in the spring of
Year 1 and the spring of Year 2. Parents of participating students completed checklists
containing questions about their child’s behavior as well as family dynamics, parenting
issues, and adult behaviors. Parents completed this form at baseline (Year 1) and then
again in the spring of Year 1 and Year 2. The number of parents completing this
information was high, 100% in Year 1 and 94.1% in the spring of Year 2. A total of
938 parent reports were used for analyses. Parents received a US $10.00 incentive for their
survey participation.

Students
Group-administered surveys were conducted with students in the spring of Year 1 and
again in the spring of Year 2. There were 938 students who completed the self-report
148 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164

measure at Year 1. Surveys were read aloud to groups of students at school and they
completed the survey forms independently. Due to their developmental stage, only 40
items were included on the self-report measure with a yes/no response scale. Similar to
teachers and parents, a high rate of retention was achieved, 100% in the spring of Year 1
and 98.1% in the spring of Year 2. Students received a small gift as an incentive for their
participation.

Outcome measures

Teachers
Teachers completed academic and behavioral measures on participating students. The
academic ratings were divided into two scales. The first, ‘‘commitment to school,’’ was
comprised of two items: ‘‘student tries hard in school’’ and ‘‘student wants to do well in
school.’’ The correlation between these two items at baseline was .80. The second scale
was specific to academic performance and was comprised of three items that focus on
reading, language arts, and math with the student being compared to peers on these
abilities. The academic performance items were not completed at baseline; however, these
items were completed each subsequent data collection period. The internal consistency
reliability coefficient of this scale at Year 1 was .92. Construct validity for the academic
performance scale was strong, showing a correlation of .79 with the California Test of
Basic Skills.
The teacher-reports on behavioral outcome measures included two scales: ‘‘social
competency’’ and ‘‘antisocial behavior.’’ The social competency measure consisted of nine
items asking teachers about a student’s ability to understand other people’s feelings,
cooperate with peers, accept responsibility for his/her actions, and share things. The
internal consistency reliability coefficient as measured at baseline was ra=.94. The second
behavioral measure labeled ‘‘antisocial behavior’’ was comprised of 10 items taken from
the Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation—Revised (Werthamer-Larsson, Kel-
lam, & Ovesen-McGregor, 1990) and the Child Behavior Checklist—Teacher Report
(Achenbach, 1991). These items examine a broad array of antisocial behavior such as
breaking things on purpose, telling a lot of lies, taking things that are not his/hers, and
starting a fight with someone. The internal consistency reliability for this measure at
baseline was ra=.92.

Parents
Parents completed two measures similar to the teacher measures, one rating their child’s
academic performance and the other their child’s behavior. The academic measure for
parents included the same two scales as the teacher measure, ‘‘commitment to school’’ and
‘‘academic performance.’’ The commitment to school items were the same as on the
teacher measure and the correlation between these items at baseline for parents was r=.58.
The academic performance scale for parents consisted of two items, one evaluating math
and the other reading, and was not assessed during the fall of Year 2. The correlation
between these two items was r=.41. The correlations among parents’ ratings were lower
than the correlations among teachers’ ratings due to the restriction in range of parent
ratings during Year 1.
 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164 149

Parent ratings of their child’s behavior focused on social competency and antisocial
behavior. The parent social competency scale was comprised of seven items that examined
issues such as making friends with other children, resolving conflicts with peers or
siblings, and controlling his/her temperament. The antisocial scale was comprised of the
same 10 items that were completed by the teacher (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). The
internal consistency reliabilities for the parent scales at baseline for social competency and
antisocial behavior were ra=.79 and ra=.78, respectively. Parents completed these
measures during the spring of Year 1 and Year 2.

Child
Participating students completed a self-report protocol in the spring of Year 1 that
included a social competency scale and an antisocial scale. The social competency scale
included two yes/no items, ‘‘is it easy for you to make friends at school’’ and ‘‘is it easy for
you to ask kids who you don’t know if you can join them in a game.’’ The antisocial scale
consisted of eight yes/no items that measured behaviors such as telling lies, breaking
things on purpose, taking things that are not yours, and often teasing or making fun of
other students. At Year 1, the correlation coefficient between the two items on the social
competency scale was r=.16 because of restriction in range, while the internal consistency
reliability of the antisocial scale was ra=.68. Student data for baseline were not collected
due to the extended parental consent period.

Program components
Program components are multifaceted and focused on classroom teachers, parents, and
students. The teacher intervention included a series of workshops for instructional
improvement in classroom management. Workshops focused on instructional strategies
shown to be effective in mainstream classrooms in reducing academic risks and early
aggressive behaviors (Gottfredson, 1990; Hawkins, Doueck, & Lishner, 1988) while
enhancing protective factors (Catalano et al., 1992) among elementary students. Workshop
topics included proactive classroom management, cooperative learning methods, strategies
to enhance student motivation, student involvement and participation, reading strategies
and interpersonal and problem-solving skills. Teachers from the same school attended
workshops together to foster and reinforce shared leaning experiences. In addition, after
each workshop RHC project staff provided classroom coaching for teachers. After the first
year of the project, teachers participated in monthly ‘‘booster’’ sessions to further reinforce
RHC teaching strategies. Teachers were also provided a substitute for a half-day so they
could observe other project teachers using RHC teaching strategies in their classrooms.
After the first 1.5 years of the intervention, exposure for staff development was strong.
Eligible teachers attended 92.4% of workshops offered. Sessions not attended were due
primarily to illness or vacation schedules (particularly for the summer workshop session).
Material from missed sessions was made up by individual meetings with either the staff
development coordinator or school –home coordinator (SHC).
Implementation of the RHC program for parents was conducted by the SHCs, who are
classroom teachers or specialists with experience in providing services to parents and
families. Parent training and involvement were offered through various mechanisms such as
five-session parenting group workshops, selected topic workshops, and in-home problem-
150 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164

solving sessions. Topics for parent training included family management skills and ‘‘How
to Help Your Child Succeed in School’’ (Developmental Research and Programs, 1991).
Fifty-three percent of parents in the experimental group either attended a workshop or had a
visit with the SHC by the end of Year 2. In addition, monthly newsletters were sent to
reinforce and extend parenting content regarding the RHC intervention.
Student intervention consisted of summer camps targeted at students with academic or
behavioral problems who were recommended by teachers or parents. Summer camps were
conducted by the SHCs and were offered at each school. In addition, in-home services
were provided for students referred for behavior or academic problems. The focus was on
decreasing the negative impact of the student in the classroom by providing indicated
services to the family.

Analysis

Analyses were conducted based on the number of data points collected during the 18-
month time period. Teacher-reported student outcomes (four data collection time points)
were analyzed in terms of the growth rate and level (defined at the end of 1.5 years of
intervention) of each child adjusted for baseline. The statistical approach used to analyze
teacher-reported student outcomes was growth curve analysis with hierarchical linear
models (HLM) (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002; Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon,
2000; Stage, 2001). In this analysis, two models of change are run. The initial model
estimates the slope and intercept for each child, provides a test of whether the variance in
slope and intercept estimates across individuals is due to sampling error, and provides
estimates of the precision of the parameters. The second model examines whether
treatment condition predicts the individual slope and intercept after controlling for
baseline, gender, and low income. Both models include time in Level 1 as a predictor
of outcome, with time coded as zero for the spring of Year 2. Thus, level differences
reported are those at the end of 1.5 years of intervention.
The analyses examining parent-reported outcomes (three data collection time points)
and child self-reported data (two data collection time points) were analyzed using
regression analysis. For analyses of parent-reported data, the effects of treatment condition
were modeled after controlling for low income, gender, and baseline. Low income, gender,
and baseline were also controlled in the child self-reported analyses, however, baseline
ratings were comprised of parent-reported data of their child at baseline because child self-
reported data at baseline were not collected.

Results

Demographic results

The demographic results for the participating students are presented in Table 1. There
were significantly more males in the sample than females, 500 and 438, respectively,
v2(df = 1) = 4.10, p=.043. There were no age differences across the experimental con-
ditions, F(3, 934)=.54, p = ns.
 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164 151

Table 1
Means and standard deviations for demographic characteristics for males and females by intervention, and the
total sample
Variable Males Females Total
RHC Controls RHC Controls
Participants (n) 273 227 224 214 938
Age
M 7.42 7.46 7.43 7.38 7.43
SD .60 .60 .66 .61 .62
Ethnicity (%)
White 81.9 81.9 81.7 82.1 81.9
Pacific Island 5.2 9.4 8.3 8.7 7.4
Black 4.2 1.9 3.6 2.8 3.0
Latino 4.2 2.4 2.6 4.0 3.9
Native American 4.2 4.7 2.6 1.6 3.3
Other .0 .0 1.0 .8 .4

Descriptive results

Means and standard deviations for the academic and behavioral scales as reported by
students, parents, and teachers over the 18-month period are presented in Table 2. Gender
differences were found from the parent-reported data at baseline for school commitment
with females having higher scores than males, t(935) = 4.79, p < .001; except on academic
performance, t(860) = 1.42, p = ns. Gender differences were also noted on the parent-
reported social competency scale at baseline with females scoring higher than males,
t(936) = 3.59, p < .001. Regarding antisocial behavior, parent-reported data showed no
significant gender differences although males had higher antisocial behavior scores,
t(936) = 2.11, p < .05. Gender differences from teacher-reported outcomes at baseline
showed that females were rated significantly higher for commitment to school and social
competency, t(906) = 4.73, p < .001 and t(906) = 5.70, p < .001, respectively, while males
were rated higher on antisocial behavior, t(906) = 7.19, p < .001. In examining the student
self-report results, there were significant gender differences on the antisocial behavior
scale; males had significantly higher scores than females in Year 1, t(935) = 5.40, p < .001.
Given that gender differences were identified by all three raters, subsequent analyses
statistically control for gender.

Longitudinal analyses

Longitudinal analyses were examined separately for each scale collected throughout the
1.5-year period. Analyses included teacher and parent report and child self-report
regarding academic and social behaviors.

Teacher-reported data
Results for teacher ratings using HLM are presented in Table 3. Results from the
initial model indicated that children varied significantly in their slopes and intercepts.
Having found significant variability in growth parameters across students for each of the
152 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164

Table 2
Means and standard deviations of outcome measures from different data sources
Scale Baseline Year 1 Spring Year 1 Fall Year 2 Spring Year 2
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Teacher report measures
Commitment to school
Males 3.13 .69 3.15 .67 3.23 .60 3.23 .64
Program 3.20 .66 3.19 .65 3.31 .60 3.28 .63
Controls 3.05 .70 3.09 .68 3.15 .59 3.16 .65
Females 3.33 .61 3.37 .65 3.40 .62 3.46 .59
Program 3.38 .59 3.42 .65 3.46 .59 3.51 .57
Controls 3.28 .62 3.33 .65 3.33 .66 3.40 .60
Academic performance
Males XXX 3.16 1.20 3.02 1.15 3.16 1.21
Program 3.25 1.18 3.20 1.15 3.31 1.16
Controls 3.06 1.21 2.81 1.16 2.98 1.24
Females XXX 3.26 1.20 3.21 1.20 3.30 1.18
Program 3.35 1.16 3.28 1.21 3.34 1.18
Controls 3.18 1.25 3.12 1.17 3.26 1.18
Social competency
Males 3.50 .87 3.52 .87 3.68 .85 3.63 .85
Program 3.55 .86 3.54 .85 3.76 .83 3.74 .81
Controls 3.43 .88 3.49 .85 3.58 .86 3.51 .87
Females 3.89 .78 3.97 .78 3.99 .78 4.03 .76
Program 3.97 .76 4.01 .78 4.03 .80 4.11 .76
Controls 3.81 .80 3.92 .77 3.94 .77 3.93 .74
Antisocial behavior
Males 1.29 .42 1.31 .42 1.25 .38 1.31 .43
Program 1.28 .41 1.30 .41 1.21 .34 1.27 .39
Controls 1.32 .43 1.33 .43 1.31 .41 1.36 .46
Females 1.15 .29 1.17 .29 1.14 .29 1.17 .31
Program 1.22 .25 1.15 .28 1.12 .28 1.13 .28
Controls 1.19 .33 1.19 .31 1.17 .31 1.20 .33

Parent report measures

Commitment to school
Males 3.45 .51 3.48 .51 XXX 3.49 .52
Program 3.48 .50 3.51 .50 3.55 .49
Controls 3.42 .53 3.44 .52 3.42 .54
Females 3.61 .48 3.61 .47 XXX 3.61 .49
Program 3.62 .49 3.62 .48 3.64 .49
Controls 3.60 .47 3.60 .46 3.58 .50
Academic performance
Males 3.77 .63 3.85 .61 XXX 3.55 .74
Program 3.78 .67 3.92 .63 3.63 .75
Controls 3.76 .57 3.76 .58 3.46 .73
Females 3.83 .64 3.93 .59 XXX 3.54 .67
Program 3.86 .65 3.95 .61 3.58 .65
Controls 3.80 .63 3.90 .56 3.51 .69
Social competency
Males 3.52 .62 3.57 .62 XXX 3.62 .59
Program 3.51 .63 3.57 .62 3.63 .59
 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164 153

Table 2 (continued )
Scale Baseline Year 1 Spring Year 1 Fall Year 2 Spring Year 2
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Social competency
Controls 3.53 .60 3.57 .64 3.60 .59
Females 3.66 .62 3.74 .60 XXX 3.76 .59
Program 3.66 .62 3.75 .60 3.79 .60
Controls 3.66 .61 3.74 .60 3.72 .58
Antisocial behavior
Males 1.51 .34 1.46 .32 XXX 1.44 .31
Program 1.51 .34 1.46 .31 1.44 .33
Controls 1.50 .33 1.46 .32 1.43 .28
Females 1.46 .29 1.42 .30 XXX 1.40 .29
Program 1.47 .29 1.44 .31 1.39 .30
Controls 1.46 .29 1.39 .28 1.40 .28

Child report measures

Social competency 1.24 .73
Males XXX 1.16 .72 XXX 1.21 .74
Program 1.10 .73 1.28 .72
Controls 1.23 .71 1.25 .72
Females XXX 1.18 .73 XXX 1.28 .72
Program 1.18 .74 1.23 .73
Controls 1.18 .73
Antisocial behavior
Males XXX 1.44 1.70 XXX 1.39 1.76
Program 1.44 1.67 1.49 1.85
Controls 1.41 1.73 1.27 1.64
Females XXX .89 1.31 XXX .75 1.33
Program .82 1.19 .56 1.11
Controls .97 1.43 .95 1.50

teacher-reported outcomes, four predictors were added into the subsequent model at
Level 2. Dichotomous variables for condition assignment (0 = control; 1 = program), and
controls for gender (0 = females; 1 = males), low-income status (0 = not low income;
1 = low income), and baseline were included in the Level 2 equations. After controlling
for gender, low income, and baseline, the main effects for treatment on slope and
intercept were significant. Also, there were no significant Gender  Intervention or
Income  Intervention interactions.
In examining teacher-reported academic outcomes, the level of student’s commitment
to school showed a significant difference by condition with program students having a
higher level of commitment than control students (see Table 3). Results examining
academic performance showed that program students had a higher level of teacher rated
academic performance than control students.
In examining the behavioral outcomes, teacher-reported social competency showed a
significant difference in both level and growth rates between program and control students.
Program students showed an increasing growth rate while control students decreased in
their level of social competency. Similar results were found regarding teacher-reported
 154
R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164
Table 3
Results of growth modeling analyses from teacher data for each outcome
Dependent outcomes Commitment to school Academic performance Antisocial behavior Social competency
Coefficient t ratio p value Coefficient t ratio p value Coefficient t ratio p value Coefficient t ratio p value
Variables
Spring Year 2 end value 2.586 21.334 .001 3.354 40.971 .001 .582 11.762 .001 2.314 17.043 .001
E/C condition .080 1.974 .048 .188 2.342 .019 .051 2.287 .022 .141 2.790 .006
Gender .165 4.159 .001 .141 1.791 .073 .073 3.429 .001 .198 3.815 .001
Low income .117 2.659 .008 .569 6.783 .001 .054 2.258 .024 .150 2.818 .005
Baseline .250 7.652 .001 N/A .505 12.083 .001 .433 13.788 .001
1.5-year growth value .536 7.451 .001 .006 .193 .848 .142 4.738 .001 .514 6.646 .001
E/C condition .031 1.299 .194 .026 .839 .402 .026 2.145 .032 .087 3.251 .002
Gender .038 1.661 .096 .012 .406 .684 .020 1.736 .082 .035 1.282 .200
Low income .011 .435 .663 .001 .029 .977 .008 .659 .510 .018 .641 .521
Baseline .154 7.703 .001 N/A .114 4.565 .001 .135 7.686 .001
 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164 155

antisocial behavior, with a significant difference in level and growth between program and
control students. Control students had a higher level of antisocial behavior and an
increasing growth rate. In contrast, program students had a lower level of antisocial
behavior and had a decreasing growth rate, according to teachers.

Parent-reported data
Regression results from parent-reported data examining the academic outcomes,
commitment to school, and academic performance are presented in Table 4. With gender,
low income, and baseline scores controlled, program condition was significantly predictive
of academic performance, with program students having higher academic performance
than control students. For commitment to school, program condition showed a significant
effect with program students showing a higher rating of commitment to school than
controls.
The regression results for the parent ratings of social competency and antisocial
behavior are presented in Table 4. Controlling for gender, low income, and baseline,
program condition was not a significant predictor of parent-reported social competency.
Similarly, program condition was not significantly predictive of antisocial behavior 1.5
years later as rated by parents.

Child self-reported data

The longitudinal analyses for the child self-report data were limited to two outcomes,
social competency and antisocial behavior (see Table 4). Both regression equations used
parents’ ratings of social competency and antisocial behavior, respectively, as substitute

Table 4
Summary of multiple regression analyses
Regression equations Dependent variable at Year 2
Social Antisocial School Academic
competency behavior commitment performance
Child reported predictors (b)
Program condition .027 .023
Income .056 .054
Gender .001 .046
Baselinea .003 .033
Multiple R .066 .075
R2 .004 .006

Parent reported predictors (b)

Program condition .035 .011 .079* .082*
Income .054* .006 .018 .032
Gender .042 .022 .066* .008
Baselinea .659** .675** .318** .520**
Multiple R .671** .678** .348** .535**
R2 .450 .459 .121 .286
a
Baseline information was from parent report of respective outcome.
* p>.05.
** p>.01.
156 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164

baseline measures because child self-report data were not collected at baseline of the
intervention program. With low income, gender, and the baseline measure controlled,
program condition was not a significant predictor in the regression models for social
competency or for antisocial behavior.

Discussion

With the current field of child and adolescent psychological services focused on
prereferral (Eidle, Truscott, Meyers, & Boyd, 1998; Mamlin & Harris, 1998; Mortenson &
Witt, 1998) and early intervention strategies (Greenberg & Kusche, 1998), combined with
the important need to provide efficacy data for interventions, RHC provides a multi-
dimensional, multifaceted program that addresses these issues in the context of reducing
childhood risk factors, enhancing protective factors, and promoting long-term mental
health. The preliminary results, examining the first 1.5 years of the program showed that
first- and second-grade students who started the program were reported by teachers and
parents as increasing their academic performance and commitment to school compared to
peers who did not receive the program. In addition, teachers rated program students as
having significantly greater increases in social competency and smaller increases in
antisocial behaviors compared to control students.
The broad-based findings signify that universal programs that focus on multidimen-
sional aspects, in this study reducing risk factors while increasing protective factors, can be
effective, with significant differences noticed after 1.5 years. These findings are similar to
those reported by CPPRG (1999) on PATHS in first graders regarding social competency
and antisocial (disruptive) behavior, although PATHS used a combined selective and
universal prevention/intervention program. Even though PATHS and RHC use different
theoretical frameworks, the results taken together suggest that targeting young elementary
students for universal prevention programs that focus on prosocial behavior is not only
appropriate, but, effective and recommended.
With increased scrutiny regarding empirically supported interventions or treatments in
conjunction with theory application and expansion (Hughes, 2000; Kratochwill & Stoiber,
2000; Lochman, 2000; Martens & Eckert, 2000; Sheridan, 2000), RHC provides a useful
tool for early intervention and prevention that can be implemented classroom-wide or
school-wide. Longitudinal research has shown that academic and social competencies have
a reciprocal relationship among elementary students (Welsh et al., 2001). Welsh et al.
(2001) reported that second graders’ positive social competence was significantly pre-
dictive of positive academic competence in third grade, suggesting that intervention
programs such as RHC that focus on developing prosocial behaviors as well as academic
competence are likely to be mutually reinforcing. The results of this study confirm the
findings by Welsh et al. in that improved prosocial behaviors and academic performance of
the RHC students were reported by teachers as well as parents. Thus, RHC’s impact may be
viewed as a multifaceted prereferral strategy that effectively influences behavioral issues as
well as an academic enhancement strategy that increases academic competence over time.
The multidimensional design of RHC within the two main environments for elementary
students, school and home, may be a significant factor that enhances the program
 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164 157

effectiveness as well as its generalizability. With teachers increasing opportunities and

providing prosocial skills training for students, and parents doing the same at home, RHC
students had significantly more chances to be exposed to prosocial environments.
Although both teacher-reported and parent-reported data showed agreement on academic
oriented outcomes, academic performance and commitment to school, they did not agree
on the behavioral outcomes, antisocial behavior and social competency. The lack of
agreement on the behavioral outcomes is consistent with previous research that showed
poor agreement between teachers and parents on items assessing child behavior (Achen-
bach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987). The fact that teachers reported program effective-
ness regarding prosocial behaviors but parents did not may be due to several factors. First,
parents may not have as many opportunities to see their child interact in structured
environments as teachers do in school, especially in elementary school where students
often spend most of their day with one teacher. Second, parents may not have as much
exposure to peer social behaviors, thus limiting their comparisons to a restricted sample of
close friends they have approved of and actively seek out for social interactions with their
child. And last, parents may not be good independent raters of their own child’s behavior
compared to teachers, especially if there are other family issues involved.
Several of the research findings deserve further discussion. First, it was interesting to
note that increased social competency ratings did not equate into lower antisocial behavior
scores for program students based on teacher report. Although teachers reported signifi-
cant differences regarding antisocial behavior, with control students displaying higher
levels than program students, the fact that program students’ mean scores on antisocial
behavior did not change was somewhat surprising. Thus, the RHC program seemed to
prevent an increase in antisocial behaviors compared to controls, but did not reduce these
behaviors. One explanation for this may be due to what other researchers (Dodge, Coie, &
Brakke, 1982) have found, that students are on their best behavior the first 2 weeks of
school and that teachers become more familiar with their students and their behavior as the
year progresses. Further evidence supporting this explanation is that the antisocial ratings
during the fall data collection times (Years 1 and 2) were, in general, lower than the spring
ratings regardless of gender or program condition.
The role of gender as a significant covariate in the teacher-reported and parent-reported
outcomes is another finding that deserves mentioning. Although antisocial behavior has
been widely associated with males (Loeber et al., 1993; Nagin & Tremblay, 1999; Nagin,
Farrington, & Moffitt, 1995), females did not show any significant reduction in antisocial
behavior compared to males in this study over the 1.5-year time period. It should be noted,
however, that RHC females did show significantly higher increases in prosocial skills
compared to males. In addition, the program effects in antisocial behavior did not differ
across gender. These findings provide early longitudinal data on a large group of
elementary females, and confirm an implication noted by Cote et al. (2001), that girls
indeed do benefit equally well as boys in early prevention of antisocial behaviors.
These findings show some similarities to other programs that are more curriculum-
based or focused on at-risk populations, such as PATHS and Second Step (CPPRG, 1999;
Frey et al., 2000; Grossman et al., 1997), as well as some important differences. In a study
examining the Second Step program (30 lessons), behavioral observations of second- and
third-grade students who received the program showed reduced physical aggression 6
158 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164

months later compared to control students. Teacher and parent ratings showed no
significant differences (CPPRG, 1999; Frey et al., 2000; Grossman et al., 1997). A study
examining the effectiveness of PATHS (57 lessons) among first graders over the academic
year was similar to Second Step, reporting significant reductions in aggressive behaviors
and an increase in on-task behaviors and self-control in program students compared to
controls, according to observers and child and peer data, but not according to teachers
(CPPRG, 1999). Departing from these two programs, teachers in the RHC program
reported significant results on all four outcomes. This difference could be due to several
factors. First, teachers in Second Step and PATHS were the same raters, pre to post, and
while this was true for Year 1 in RHC, Year 2 had independent teacher ratings for most
students compared to Year 1. Second, the implementation period for RHC was longer, 1.5
years compared to 9 months for PATHS and 6 months for Second Step; thus, there was
more time for skill development and practice in the RHC intervention allowing for a
greater opportunity for changes to take place.
In addition to these results, this study advances the field by implementing the
recommended suggestions by other researchers (CPPRG, 1999; Rutter, 2000; Weissberg
& Elias, 1993). First, the analysis of teacher-rated student behavior allowed for examining
within-individual changes across time for both program and control students as well as
between groups (Rutter, 2000). Second, results were based on a longitudinal model
examining growth over two academic years (CPPRG, 1999; Weissberg & Greenberg,
1998). This point deserves further comment because multiple teachers were used as
independent raters for each student rather than a single teacher over the length of the
intervention. This helped reduce the extent that individual teacher characteristics affected
the teacher-reported outcomes because multiple raters were used (Cote et al., 2001).

Limitations

Several limitations in this study need to be noted. First, the number of data collection
points across the different raters was not the same, and thus warranted different statistical
analyses. In this regard, making absolute comparisons across raters focusing on the
trajectories of the different academic and behavioral outcomes were not possible warrant-
ing cautious generalizations. A second limitation was that baseline information was not
collected from the child that corresponded to the teacher-reported and parent-reported data.
This precluded direct comparisons between teacher and child and between parent and child
reports. Although researchers have found that parents and teachers are accurate reporters
of externalizing difficulties, such as antisocial behavior, they are often unaware of the
internalizing behaviors, such as depression (Reynolds & Johnston, 1994). Because of this
limitation, parent-reported baseline outcomes were used to substitute for child baseline
scores in the regression analyses that examined child self-reported outcomes. Related to
the child data, a third limitation is the lack of variability on the outcome measures for first
and second graders. There may be two reasons associated with this lack of variability.
First, due to child development issues, item responses on the child self-report measures
were simply yes versus no; in comparison, teacher and parent responses were formatted
using a three- to five-point scale depending on the item. Second, most of the students
responded favorably to school and behavior items, thus providing little variation in scores
 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164 159

making it difficult to identify program effect. Fourth, those implementing the RHC
program were the same teachers who provided the outcome ratings on the students. Thus,
teachers receiving the RHC program may be more likely to rate students as improving or
higher on outcome measures than teachers in the control group. The severity of this
limitation is somewhat reduced because most students had two teachers providing ratings,
one teacher in Year 1 and a different teacher in Year 2. In addition, teachers were not the
sole reporters on outcome variables; parent and student ratings were also included to
examine overall program effectiveness. Finally, this study relied on informants (child,
parents, and teachers) as the sole mechanism for obtaining data. Other methods of data
collection such as independent observations or use of standardized tests might yield
additional information.

Future research

Although the results of this study have provided important preliminary information
regarding the effectiveness of the RHC program with elementary students, future research
studies are still warranted. Specific to intervention programs, longitudinal studies that
examine results from elementary school to high school are needed to examine the long-
term impact and generalization of skills that were the primary focus of the elementary
intervention program. As noted by Cote et al. (2001), this type of research may also
provide the identification of risk behaviors at elementary ages that show strong pathways
to adolescent antisocial behavior. Along similar lines, future follow-up studies of students
post high school would be helpful in determining the overall effectiveness of the
intervention programs and what specific variables are impacted the most in young adults.
Future research examining the efficacy of specific intervention programs needs to
include outcome measures beyond academics and externalizing behaviors, such as
internalizing behaviors (i.e., depression and self-esteem) and protective factors (i.e., social
support and coping skills). Researchers have shown that early internalizing behaviors are
predictive of later externalizing behaviors (Egeland, Pianta, & Ogawa, 1996; Kerr,
Tremblay, Pagani, & Vitaro, 1997) and that antisocial behavior is frequently comorbid
with other mental health behaviors such depression (Loeber & Keenan, 1994; Reynolds &
Johnston, 1994) and hyperactivity (Barkley, Fischer, Edelbrock, & Smallish, 1990;
Tremblay et al., 1994). Thus, examining the benefits of a particular program may produce
widespread results on proximal and distal factors that were not within the intended focus.
Lastly, a comparison of different models of intervention across time would be helpful. This
type of research would allow for direct comparisons of efficacy across different
intervention programs and would be helpful in identifying the strengths and weaknesses
of each program as pertaining to a specific environment or situation.
Finally, further research including process measures and outcomes might help facilitate
the understanding of why the RHC program worked. This examination of process
variables and mechanisms should be directly linked to the different components of the
SDM. As Hughes (2000) pointed out, identifying and understanding the mechanisms
behind the change of specific prevention or intervention programs becomes important
because it enables practitioners to adapt the program to different environments and
situations, thus increasing the probability of success.
160 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164

Implications and summary

The overall results from this study show RHC as a robust, efficacious, universal
intervention program that increases students’ academic performance, commitment to
school, and social competency, and prevents increases in antisocial behavior in elementary
students after only 1.5 years, according to teacher-reported outcomes. Parents of RHC
students also noticed differences in their children’s academic arena compared to control
parents, but not in their behavioral outcomes; child self-report results were nonsignificant.
RHC combines a multifaceted approach, including parents, teachers, and students focused
on a similar goal: the development and practice of prosocial behaviors with a compre-
hensive structural design that reduces risk factors, enhances protective factors, and
promotes long-term mental health factors. This combination provides schools with an
effective method of delivering classroom or school-wide universal psychological services
for elementary students.
The structure of RHC has numerous advantages that increase its utility and success
in a school setting. The incorporation and implementation of school and family
components into the program provides an inherent home – school collaboration and
helps foster cooperation across the two environments. In addition, RHC teaches
principles of prosocial development allowing flexibility for teachers to design their
own lesson plans for delivering the intervention that are customized for their particular
classroom.
It is important to remember that the results presented here are preliminary and
represent the first 1.5 years of the intervention. Although these initial results are
encouraging, further research is needed to confirm these results, and continued longi-
tudinal analyses through middle and high school of RHC and other intervention programs
are warranted. Thus, these results should be interpreted cautiously. With continued focus
on classroom or school-wide prevention and intervention programs and the push to
implement prereferral strategies, especially around behavioral issues at the elementary
level, RHC offers a viable mechanism to fulfill these needs while promoting long-term
mental health in our youth.

Acknowledgements

Supported by Grant #R001 DA08093 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The
authors gratefully acknowledge the staff, families, and students of the participating project
schools in Edmonds School District #15 for their support and cooperation in the Raising
Healthy Children project.

References

Abbott, R. D., O’Donnell, J., Hawkins, J. D., Hill, K. G., Kosterman, R., & Catalano, R. F. (1998). Changing
teaching practices to promote achievement and bonding to school. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68,
542 – 552.
 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164 161

Aber, J. L., Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., Chaudry, N., & Samples, F. (1998). Resolving conflict creatively:
evaluating the developmental effects of a school-based violence prevention program in neighborhood and
classroom context. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 187 – 213.
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Teacher’s Report Form and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of
Vermont Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. (1983). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and Revised Child Behavior
Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont Press.
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional
problems: implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101,
213 – 232.
Barkley, R. A., Fischer, M., Edelbrock, C. S., & Smallish, L. (1990). The adolescent outcome of hyperactive
children diagnosed by research criteria: I. An 8-year prospective follow-up study. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 546 – 557.
Battin-Pearson, S., Newcomb, M. D., Abbott, R. D., Hill, K. G., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (2000).
Predictors of early high school dropout: a test of five theories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
568 – 582.
Beelmann, A., Pfingsten, U., & Loesel, F. (1994). Effects of training social competence in children: a meta-
analysis of recent evaluation studies. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 260 – 271.
Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Botvin, E. M., & Diaz, T. (1995). Long-term follow-up results of a
randomized drug abuse prevention trial in a white middle-class population. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 273, 1106 – 1112.
Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (1999). Positive youth
development in the United States. Research findings on evaluations of the positive youth development pro-
grams. Report to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation and National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Seattle, WA:
Social Development Research Group, University of Washington School of Social Work.
Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Gainey, R. R., Hoppe, M. J., & Brewer, D. D. (1998). Effectiveness
of prevention interventions with youth at high-risk of drug abuse. In W. J. Bukoski, & R. I. Evans
(Eds.), NIDA Research Monograph: Vol. 176. Cost – benefit/cost-effectiveness research of drug abuse
prevention: implications for programming and policy (pp. 83 – 110). Rockville, MD: National Institute
on Drug Abuse.
Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: a theory of antisocial behavior. In J. D.
Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: current theories (pp. 149 – 197). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Catalano, R. F., Morrison, D. M., Wells, E. A., Gillmore, M. R., Iritani, B., & Hawkins, J. D. (1992).
Ethnic differences in family factors related to early drug initiation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 53,
208 – 217.
Coie, J. D., Underwood, M., & Lochman, J. E. (1991). Programmatic intervention with aggressive children in the
school setting. In D. J. Pepler, & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression
(pp. 389 – 410). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coie, J. D., Watt, N. F., West, S. G., Hawkins, J. D., Asarnow, J. R., Markman, H. J., Ramey, S. L., Shure, M. B.,
& Long, B. (1993). The science of prevention. A conceptual framework and some directions for a national
research program. American Psychologist, 48, 1013 – 1022.
Cole, D. A., Martin, J. M., Powers, B., & Truglio, R. (1996). Modeling causal relations between academic and
social competence and depression: a multitrait – multimethod longitudinal study of children. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 105, 258 – 270.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (1999). Initial impact of the Fast Track Prevention Trial for
Conduct Problems: II. Classroom effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 648 – 657.
Cote, S., Zoccolillo, M., Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D., & Vitaro, F. (2001). Predicting girls’ conduct disorder in
adolescence from childhood trajectories of disruptive behaviors. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 678 – 684.
Developmental Research and Programs (1991). How to help your child succeed in school. Seattle, WA: Author.
Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Brakke, N. P. (1982). Behavior patterns of socially rejected and neglected
162 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164

preadolescents: the roles of social approach and aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10,
389 – 409.
Egeland, B., Pianta, R., & Ogawa, J. (1996). Early behavior problems: pathways to mental disorders in adoles-
cence. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 735 – 749.
Eidle, K. A., Truscott, S. D., Meyers, J., & Boyd, T. (1998). The role of prereferral intervention teams in early
intervention and prevention of mental health problems. School Psychology Review, 27, 204 – 216.
Embry, D. D., Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Powell, K. E., & Atha, H. (1996). PeaceBuilders: a theoret-
ically driven, school-based model for early violence prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
12, 91 – 100.
Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., & Guzzo, B. A. (2000). Second Step: preventing aggression by promoting social
competence. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 102 – 112.
Gottfredson, D. C. (1990). Developing effective organizations to reduce school disorder. In O. C. Moles
(Ed.), Student discipline strategies: research and practice (pp. 47 – 62). Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Greenberg, M. T., & Kusche, C. A. (1998). Preventive interventions for school-age deaf children: the PATHS
curriculum. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3, 49 – 63.
Grossman, D. C., Neckerman, H. J., & Rivara, F. P. (1997). Effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum
among children in elementary school: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 277, 1605 – 1611.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R., & Hill, K. G. (1999). Preventing adolescent health-
risk behaviors by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,
153, 226 – 234.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug
problems in adolescence and early adulthood: implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological
Bulletin, 112, 64 – 105.
Hawkins, J. D., Doueck, H. J., & Lishner, D. M. (1988). Changing teaching practices in mainstream class-
rooms to improve bonding and behavior of low achievers. American Educational Research Journal, 25,
31 – 50.
Hawkins, J. D., Guo, J., Hill, K. G., Battin-Pearson, S., & Abbott, R. D. (2001). Long term effects of the Seattle
Social Development intervention on school bonding trajectories. Applied Developmental Science: special
issue: Prevention as Altering the Course of Development, 5, 225 – 236.
Hughes, J. N. (2000). The essential role of theory in the science of teaching children: beyond empirically
supported treatments. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 301 – 330.
Hymel, S., Rubin, K. H., Rowden, L., & LeMare, L. (1990). Children’s peer relationships: longitudinal
prediction of internalizing and externalizing problems from middle to late childhood. Child Development,
61, 2004 – 2021.
Jenson, J. M., Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (1986). Social support in aftercare services for troubled youth.
Children and Youth Services Review, 8, 323 – 347.
Kellam, S. G., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Brown, C. H., & Ialongo, N. (1998). The effect of the level of aggression in
the first grade classroom on the course and malleability of aggressive behavior into middle school. Develop-
ment and Psychopathology, 10, 165 – 185.
Kellam, S. G., & Rebok, G. W. (1992). Building developmental and etiological theory through epidemiologically
based preventive intervention trials. In J. McCord, & R. E. Tremblay (Eds.), Preventing antisocial behavior:
interventions from birth through adolescence (pp. 162 – 195). New York: Guilford Press.
Kellam, S. G., Rebok, G. W., Ialongo, N. S., & Mayer, L. S. (1994). The course and malleability of aggressive
behavior from early first grade into middle school: results of a developmental epidemiology-based preventive
trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35, 259 – 281.
Kerr, M., Tremblay, R. E., Pagani, L., & Vitaro, F. (1997). Boys’ behavioral inhibition and the risk of later
delinquency. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54, 809 – 816.
Kratochwill, T. R., & Stoiber, K. C. (2000). Diversifying theory and science: expanding the boundaries of
empirically supported interventions in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 349 – 358.
Lochman, J. E. (2000). Theory and empiricism in intervention research: a dialectic to be avoided. Journal of
School Psychology, 38, 359 – 368.
 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164 163

Loeber, R., & Keenan, K. (1994). Interaction between conduct disorder and its comorbid conditions: effects of
age and gender. Clinical Psychology Review, 14, 497 – 523.
Loeber, R., Wung, P., Keenan, K., Giroux, B., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Van Kammen, W. B., & Maughan, B.
(1993). Developmental pathways in disruptive child behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 5,
103 – 133.
Mamlin, N., & Harris, K. R. (1998). Elementary teachers’ referral to special education in light of inclusion and
prereferral: ‘‘every child is here to learn . . . but some of these children are in real trouble’’. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 385 – 396.
Martens, B. K., & Eckert, T. L. (2000). The essential role of data in psychological theory. Journal of School
Psychology, 38, 369 – 376.
Mortenson, B. P., & Witt, J. C. (1998). The use of weekly performance feedback to increase teacher implemen-
tation of a prereferral academic intervention. School Psychology Review, 27, 613 – 627.
Mrazek, P. J., & Haggerty, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). Committee on Prevention of Mental Disorders, Institute of
Medicine. Reducing risks for mental disorders: frontiers for prevention intervention research. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Nagin, D., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Trajectories of boys’ physical aggression, opposition, and hyperactivity on
the path to physically violent and nonviolent juvenile delinquency. Child Development, 70, 1181 – 1196.
Nagin, D. S., Farrington, D. P., & Moffitt, T. E. (1995). Life-course trajectories of different types of offenders.
Criminology, 33, 111 – 139.
Newcomb, M. D., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., Hawkins, J. D., Battin, S. R., & Hill, K. G. (2002). Mediational
and deviance theories of late high school failure: process roles of structural strains, academic competence, and
general versus specific problem behaviors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 172 – 186.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods
(2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. T. (2000). HLM 5: hierarchical linear and
nonlinear modeling (version 5). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Reynolds, W. M., & Johnston, H. F. (1994). The nature and study of depression in children and adolescents.
In W. M. Reynolds, & H. F. Johnston (Eds.), Handbook of depression in children and adolescents (pp. 3 – 17).
New York, NY: Plenum.
Rutter, M. (1996). Transitions and turning points in developmental psychopathology: as applied to the age span
between childhood and mid-adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 603 – 626.
Rutter, M. (2000). Psychosocial influences: critiques, findings, and research needs. Development and Psycho-
pathology, 12, 375 – 405.
Sheridan, S. M. (2000). The science and theory of empirically supported treatments: a response to Hughes.
Journal of School Psychology, 38, 377 – 382.
Slavin, R. E. (1988). Synthesis of research on grouping in elementary and secondary schools. Educational
Leadership, 46, 67 – 77.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., Wasik, B. A., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. J. (1994). ‘‘Whenever and
wherever we choose’’: the replication of ‘‘Success for All’’. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 639 – 640, 642 – 647.
Stage, S. A. (2001). Program evaluation using hierarchical linear modeling with curriculum-based measurement
reading probes. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 91 – 112.
Stage, S. A., Sheppard, J., Davidson, M. M., & Browning, M. M. (2001). Prediction of first-graders’ growth in
oral reading fluency using kindergarten letter fluency. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 225 – 237.
Surgeon General. (1988). The health consequences of smoking: Nicotine addiction: a report of the Surgeon
General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Tremblay, R. E., Pihl, R. O., Vitaro, F., & Dobkin, P. L. (1994). Predicting early onset of male antisocial behavior
from preschool behavior. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51, 732 – 739.
Webster-Stratton, C. (1992). Individually administered videotape parent training: ‘‘who benefits?’’. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 16, 31 – 52.
Weissberg, R. P., & Elias, M. J. (1993). Enhancing young people’s social competence and health behavior: an
important challenge for educators, scientists, policymakers, and funders. Applied and Preventive Psychology,
2, 179 – 190.
Weissberg, R. P., & Greenberg, M. T. (1998). School and community competence-enhancement and pre-
164 R.F. Catalano et al. / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 143–164

vention programs. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4 (5th ed.) (pp. 877 – 954).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Welsh, M., Parke, R. D., Widaman, K., & O’Neil, R. (2001). Linkages between children’s social and academic
competence: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 463 – 482.
Werthamer-Larsson, L., Kellam, S. G., & Ovesen-McGregor, K. E. (1990). Teacher interview: Teacher Obser-
vation of Classroom Adaptation – Revised (TOCA-R). In S. G. Kellam (Ed.), Johns Hopkins Prevention
Center Training Manual. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.