Aggression Replacement Training® (ART®)

Evidence Rating:
Effective – More than one investigate Effective - More than one study

Program Goals
Aggression Replacement Training® (ART®) concentrates on growth of particular competencies to residence several romantic and amicable aspects that minister to assertive function in youths. Program techniques are designed to learn youths how to control their indignant impulses and take perspectives other than their own. The categorical idea is to revoke assign and assault among youths by providing them with opportunities to learn prosocial skills in place of assertive behavior.

Target Population/Eligibility
The module is targeted during youths with a story of vicious assign and eremitic behavior, and can be practical opposite several opposite populations. Some potentially authorised populations embody jailed youthful offenders and youths with clinical behavioral disorders. It is endorsed that intensity participants are screened for risk and astringency of aggressive/antisocial function before doing to consider eligibility for inclusion. This form of comment mostly includes a use of clinical instruments to inspect a grade of cryptic function in youths.

Program Components
ART® consists of a 10-week, 30-hour involvement administered to groups of 8 to 12 juveniles 3 times per week. The module relies on repeated training and send training techniques to learn participants to control buoyancy and annoy so they can select to use some-more suitable prosocial behaviors. In addition, guided organisation contention is used to scold eremitic thinking. The module consists of 3 related components, all of that come together to foster a extensive aggression-reduction curriculum: Structured Learning Training, Anger Control Training, and Moral Reasoning. Each member focuses on a specific prosocial behavioral technique: action, affective/emotional, or thought/values. During module implementation, youths attend a 1-hour event any week for any of a 3 components.

  • Structured Learning Training (action component). This member is dictated to learn amicable skills by amicable communication and is disseminated regulating approach instruction, role-play, practice, and opening feedback. This is dictated to give participants a event to use prosocial responses to potentially formidable situations, such as responding to failure, traffic with an accusation, and responding to a feelings of others.
  • Anger Control Training (affective/emotional component). This member is dictated to assistance youths commend their outmost and inner triggers for aggression, assign signals, and how to control annoy regulating several techniques. Participating youths contingency move to any event one or some-more descriptions of new anger-arousing practice (hassles), and over a generation of a module they are lerned to use specific skills to softened control their indignant impulses.
  • Moral Reasoning (thought and values component). This member is dictated to residence a logic aspect of assertive behavior, and is privately designed to raise values of probity in assertive youths. Techniques in this member concede participants to learn to reason in a some-more modernized demeanour in courtesy to dignified and reliable dilemmas, providing youths with opportunities to plead their responses to problem situations, holding perspectives other than their possess that paint a aloft turn of dignified understating.

Evaluation Outcomes

top borderStudy 1
Felony Recidivism Rates

A investigate of Aggression Replacement Training® (ART®) by a Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2004) indicated that within a 21 courts rated as possibly efficient or rarely competent, a 18-month transgression recidivism rate was 19 percent, compared with 25 percent for a control group. This translates to a 24 percent statistically poignant rebate in transgression recidivism among ART® youths in efficient courts relations to those who did not accept treatment.

For courts deemed not competent, a 18-month transgression recidivism rate was 27 percent, compared with 25 percent for a control group. This translates to a 7 percent boost in transgression recidivism among ART® youths relations to those who did not accept treatment, though this anticipating was not statistically significant.

With all courts sum (competent and not competent), a 18-month transgression recidivism rate was 21 percent, compared with 25 percent for a control group. This translates to a 16 percent statistically poignant rebate in transgression recidivism among ART® youths in all courts relations to those who did not accept treatment.

The commentary yield implications for a significance of fealty during a administration of ART®; as formula prove that courts that exercise a module in a efficient demeanour yield some-more effective reductions in recidivism than courts that do not.

Study 2
Social Skills

Gundersen and Svartdal’s 2006 investigate of Aggression Replacement Training® (ART®) found that, formed on parent-reported results, there were poignant improvements in Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) scores among ART® youths though no poignant change among comparison youths. Based on teacher-reported scores, ART® youths demonstrated a poignant boost in SSRS scores, while comparison youths demonstrated a nonsignificant change. Based on child-reported scores, there were nonsignificant changes in both ART® youths and comparison youths.

Based on a results, it can be surmised that ART® promoted an effective alleviation in amicable skills among participating youths.

Moral Reasoning
How we Think scores among ART® youths softened significantly for both a diagnosis and control groups.
Problem Behavior
Based on parent-reported Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) scores, problem function was significantly reduced among ART® youths relations to a comparison youths, that had no poignant changes. Based on teacher-reported CBCL scores, problem function was significantly reduced among ART® youths relations to a control group, that had no poignant changes. Children-reported CBCL scores indicated poignant reductions in both ART® youths and comparison youths.

Based on parent-reported Child and Adolescent Disruptive Behavior Inventory 2.3 (CADBI) scores, problem function was significantly reduced among ART® youths relations to a comparison youths, that indicated nonsignificant reductions. Based on teacher-reported CADBI scores, problem function was significantly reduced among ART® youths relations to a comparison group, that had no poignant changes. Based on a custom-made self-report form blending to a CADBI, problem function was significantly reduced among ART® youths relations to a comparison group, that had no poignant changes.

bottom border

Evaluation Methodology

top borderStudy 1
A investigate of Aggression Replacement Training® (ART®) by a Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2004) used a pseudo–random assignment waitlist procession to allot 1,229 adjudicated youths to possibly a control (n=525) or diagnosis organisation (n=704) within 26 youthful courts in Washington state. To be authorised for inclusion in a study, youths contingency have met risk comment criteria for assuage or high risk, as good as have story of a before assign for a weapon, aroused misdemeanor, or transgression conviction. Youths who met a preference criteria and had sufficient time on organisation to finish a module were reserved by justice staff to a suitable program. When a module reached ability (all therapists had full caseloads or sessions were full), a remaining authorised youths were reserved by justice staff to a control organisation and never participated in a program; instead, they perceived a common youthful justice services. The representation was roughly 80 percent 15-year-old males. The analyses used multivariate statistical techniques to control for systemic differences between a module and control groups on pivotal characteristics (gender, age, and domain risk and protecting cause scores).

Fidelity to module pattern was a vicious component of a evaluation, and courts were rated formed on their competency in administering diagnosis in suitability with dictated goals. Based on confluence to module specifications, courts were dynamic as possibly efficient or not competent. The courts dynamic to broach services were afterwards ranked on their relations levels of competency, specifying a many efficient courts from a rest. Twenty-one courts were judged as delivering ART® competently, that enclosed providing effective diagnosis to 501 youths. The dual rarely efficient courts supposing ART® to 99 youths. Five courts were rated as not delivering ART® competently, that enclosed 108 youths and 203 in a diagnosis group.

Recidivism was totalled by regulating self-assurance rates for successive youthful or adult offenses. Three self-assurance rates were reported: sum misconduct and transgression convictions; transgression convictions; and aroused transgression convictions. The follow-up “at risk” duration for any girl was 18 months.

Study 2
Gundersen and Svartdal (2006) conducted a randomized tranquil hearing of Aggression Replacement Training® (ART®) in a propagandize setting. Subjects were 65 children and immature people with varying degrees of behavioral problems. Subjects ranged from 11 to 17 years old. Potential participants were screened with a elementary checklist to compute 3 levels of behavioral problems: “None” (may need amicable skills training, though has not grown poignant function problems); “Mild” (exhibits some grade of function problems); or “Some” (some grade of vicious function problems). Participants were divided into diagnosis and control groups, with 47 reserved to accept ART® treatment, and 18 in a control organisation reserved to accept customary amicable and educational services. The analysis consisted of 6 substudies in normal schools, dual in special schools for teenagers with function problems, one in an establishment for teenagers with function problems, one in a psychiatric child clinic, and one in a specialized organisation for pupils with Asperger Syndrome.

The outcome measures for a investigate were amicable skills, dignified thinking, and problem behavior. These were assessed regulating 4 clinical instruments. To benefit a extensive bargain of a program’s effects on participants’ behavior, a instruments were filled out by parents, teachers, and youths themselves; with a difference of a How we Think (HIT) instrument, that was filled out usually by students. Pretest and posttest analyses for instrument scores were conducted, and compared among diagnosis and control groups.

  • Social skills. Measured by Social Skills Rating System; used to magnitude amicable skills, problem behavior, and educational cunning regulating 4 subscales of cooperation, assertion, self-control, and responsibility.
  • Moral reasoning. Measured by HIT; measures dignified meditative and self-indulgent cognitive distortions in eremitic youths, including 4 subscales: being self-centered, blaming others, minimizing/mislabeling, and presumption a worst.
  • Problem behavior. Measured by a Child Behavior Checklist and a Child and Adolescent Disruptive Behavior Inventory 2.3, that magnitude specific problem behaviors, activity level, and courtesy skills.

bottom border

Cost

top borderbottom border

Implementation Information

top borderbottom border

Evidence-Base (Studies Reviewed)

top borderThese sources were used in a growth of a module profile:

Study 1
Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 2004. Outcome Evaluation of Washington State’s Research-Based Programs for Juvenile Offenders. Olympia, Wash.: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/04-01-1201.pdf

Study 2
Gundersen, Knut K., and Frode Svartdal. 2006. “Aggression Replacement Training in Norway: Outcome Evaluation of 11 Norwegian Student Projects.” Scandinavian Journal of Education Research 50(1):63–81.

bottom border

Additional References

top borderThese sources were used in a growth of a module profile:

Coleman, Maggie, Steven Pfeiffer, and Thomas Oakland. 1992. “Aggression Replacement Training With Behaviorally Disordered Adolescents.” Behavioral Disorder 18(1):54–66. (This investigate was reviewed though did not accommodate Crime Solutions’ criteria for inclusion in a altogether module rating.)

Glick, Barry. 1996. “Aggression Replacement Training in Children and Adolescents.” Hatherleigh Guide to Child and Adolescent Therapy 5:191–226.

Goldstein, Arnold P., and Barry Glick. 1994. “Aggression Replacement Training: Curriculum and Evaluation.” Simulation and Gaming 25(1):9–26.
http://www.behavioralinstitute.org/Professional_Development/Workshops/Topics/STAIRS_START/ART%20Research.pdf

———. 1996a. “Aggression Replacement Training: Methods and Outcomes.” In Clive R. Hollin and Keith Howells (eds.). Clinical Approaches to Working With Offenders. Chichester, England: John Wiley Sons.

———. 1996c. “Aggression Replacement Training: Teaching Prosocial Behaviors to Antisocial Youth.” In Robert R. Ross, Daniel H. Antonowicz, and Gurmeet K. Dhaliwal (eds.). Effective Delinquency Prevention and Offender Rehabilitation. Ottawa, Ontario: AIR Training and Publications.

Goldstein, Arnold P., Barry Glick, Wilma Carthan, and Douglas A. Blancero. 1994. The Prosocial Gang: Implementing Aggression Replacement Training. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Goldstein, Arnold P., Barry Glick, and John C. Gibbs. 1998. Aggression Replacement Training: A Comprehensive Intervention for Aggressive Youth (Revised Edition). Champaign, Ill: Research Press.

Goldstein, Arnold P., Barry Glick, Scott Reiner, Deborah Zimmerman, and Thomas M. Coultry. 1987. Aggression Replacement Training. Champaign, Ill.: Research Press.

bottom border

qrCode