Context No randomized controlled studies have been conducted to date on the
effectiveness of psychological interventions for children with symptoms of
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that has resulted from personally witnessing
or being personally exposed to violence.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a collaboratively designed school-based
intervention for reducing children's symptoms of PTSD and depression that
has resulted from exposure to violence.
Design A randomized controlled trial conducted during the 2001-2002 academic
year.
Setting and Participants Sixth-grade students at 2 large middle schools in Los Angeles who reported
exposure to violence and had clinical levels of symptoms of PTSD.
Intervention Students were randomly assigned to a 10-session standardized cognitive-behavioral
therapy (the Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools) early
intervention group (n = 61) or to a wait-list delayed intervention comparison
group (n = 65) conducted by trained school mental health clinicians.
Main Outcome Measures Students were assessed before the intervention and 3 months after the
intervention on measures assessing child-reported symptoms of PTSD (Child
PTSD Symptom Scale; range, 0-51 points) and depression (Child Depression Inventory;
range, 0-52 points), parent-reported psychosocial dysfunction (Pediatric Symptom
Checklist; range, 0-70 points), and teacher-reported classroom problems using
the Teacher-Child Rating Scale (acting out, shyness/anxiousness, and learning
problems; range of subscales, 6-30 points).
Results Compared with the wait-list delayed intervention group (no intervention),
after 3 months of intervention students who were randomly assigned to the
early intervention group had significantly lower scores on symptoms of PTSD
(8.9 vs 15.5, adjusted mean difference, − 7.0; 95% confidence interval
[CI], − 10.8 to − 3.2), depression (9.4 vs 12.7, adjusted mean
difference, − 3.4; 95% CI, − 6.5 to − 0.4), and psychosocial
dysfunction (12.5 vs 16.5, adjusted mean difference, − 6.4; 95% CI,
–10.4 to –2.3). Adjusted mean differences between the 2 groups
at 3 months did not show significant differences for teacher-reported classroom
problems in acting out (−1.0; 95% CI, –2.5 to 0.5), shyness/anxiousness
(0.1; 95% CI, –1.5 to 1.7), and learning (−1.1, 95% CI, –2.9
to 0.8). At 6 months, after both groups had received the intervention, the
differences between the 2 groups were not significantly different for symptoms
of PTSD and depression; showed similar ratings for psychosocial function;
and teachers did not report significant differences in classroom behaviors.
Conclusion A standardized 10-session cognitive-behavioral group intervention can
significantly decrease symptoms of PTSD and depression in students who are
exposed to violence and can be effectively delivered on school campuses by
trained school-based mental health clinicians.
In the last decade, there has been heightened awareness of the extent
to which children personally witness or experience violence.1-3 Public
health officials have responded by identifying violence as one of the most
significant US public health issues.4-6 Large
numbers of US children experience such violence, and an even greater number
may experience symptoms of distress after personally witnessing violence directed
at others.2,7-9 For
many children, personally experiencing or directly witnessing multiple incidents
of violence is the norm.3,10,11 Violence
affects all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups, but its burden falls
disproportionately on urban,5,12 poor,
and minority populations.13,14
Several studies have found that the majority of children exposed to
violence, defined as personally witnessing or directly experiencing a violent
event, display symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD),15,16 and
a substantial minority develop clinically significant PTSD.17-19 However,
the harmful effects of violence extend beyond symptoms of PTSD. Exposure to
violence is associated with depression20 and
behavioral problems.2,9,21 In
addition, children exposed to violence are more likely to have poorer school
performance,22-24 decreased
IQ and reading ability,25 lower grade-point
average, and more days of school absence,22 even
if they do not develop PTSD. Exposure to violence also may interfere with
the important developmental milestones of childhood and adolescence.26
These wide-ranging negative sequelae of violence have stimulated calls
for interventions that address the needs of children who are experiencing
a range of symptoms after witnessing or experiencing violence.27 Yet
despite the enormous public health significance of this violence, no randomized
controlled trials have been conducted to date of interventions for these children
who have been exposed to violence and have experienced symptoms.
For several years, Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) school
mental health clinicians and clinician-researchers from local research institutions
have collaborated to document the magnitude of exposure to violence among
LAUSD students10 and to develop, implement,
and evaluate a standardized intervention for students experiencing symptoms
after exposure to violence.28,29 Based
on our previous research, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to test
the effectiveness of a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) group intervention
to reduce symptoms of PTSD and depression and to improve psychosocial functioning
and classroom behavior in students in the general school population of 2 large
urban middle schools.
The evaluation was conducted during the 2001-2002 academic year at 2
middle schools in East Los Angeles, a socioeconomically disadvantaged, primarily
Latino area of Los Angeles. After parents agreed to have their children participate
and children agreed to be screened, trained LAUSD school mental health clinicians
administered a self-report questionnaire regarding exposure to violence and
symptoms of PTSD to 769 English-speaking sixth-grade students during class
time, in groups of 25 to 30 students. Clinicians read the questions aloud
to the students, who sat apart from one another to ensure privacy. Students
were screened for exposure to violence using a modified version of the 34-item
Life Events Scale.1 They were asked about multiple
types of violence (slapping, hitting, punching; beatings; knife attacks; and
shootings) and reported separately how frequently they had experienced directly
or had witnessed personally each type of violence. Several questions that
asked specifically about violence at home were removed at the request of school
personnel. Students were instructed not to include media violence and violence
that they had only heard about.
Students were eligible to participate in the program if they (1) had
substantial exposure to violence, defined as being the victim or witness of
violence involving a knife or gun or having a Life Events Scale summed score
greater than 6, consistent with exposure to 3 or more violent events; (2)
had symptoms of PTSD in the clinical range, assessed using the 17-item Child
PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS)30; (3) had symptoms
of PTSD related to exposure to violence that they were willing to discuss
in a group as determined by their school-based mental health clinician; and
(4) did not appear too disruptive to participate in a group therapy intervention
session in the opinion of their school-based mental health clinician. One
hundred fifty-nine students met the inclusion criteria and were offered participation
in the program; written informed consent was obtained from parents, and assents
were obtained from students. Thirty-three students did not participate; 28
parents did not give consent and 5 students did not agree to participate.
One hundred twenty-six students chose to participate and completed the
baseline assessments. One hundred seventeen students (93%) completed the 3-month
follow-up assessments; 113 (90%) completed both the 3-month and 6-month follow-up
assessments. The study was conducted in compliance with the LAUSD's research
review committee and the institutional review boards of RAND and UCLA.
After the school mental health clinician obtained parent consent and
student assent to participate in the program, a central office was used to
randomly assign students to an early intervention group (n = 61) or to a wait-list
delayed intervention group (n = 65) using random numbers generated by the
clinician-researchers, using Microsoft Excel 2001.31 Because
school officials preferred to provide the intervention program to all students
in the same academic year, students assigned to the wait-list delayed intervention
comparison group participated in the program 3 months following screening
of the early intervention group and all the participants had completed the
3-month follow-up assessment. The flow diagram (Figure 1) shows the sampling and assignment of students to the early
intervention and delayed intervention groups, as well as the timing of the
assessments and the intervention for both groups.
The intervention was a 10-session CBT group called the Cognitive-Behavioral
Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS),32 which
was designed for use in an inner-city school mental health clinic with a multicultural
population (Box). The CBITS
intervention incorporates CBT skills in a group format (5-8 students per group)
to address symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, and depression related to exposure to
violence. Generally, in each session a new set of techniques was introduced
by a mixture of didactic presentation, age-appropriate examples and games
to solidify concepts, and individual work on worksheets during and between
sessions. The techniques taught to the students were similar to those used
in other CBT groups for individuals with PTSD.33 The
CBITS intervention emphasizes applying techniques learned in the program to
the child's own problems. Homework assignments were developed collaboratively
between the student and the clinician in each session and were reviewed at
the beginning of the next session.
Session 1
Introduction of group members, confidentiality, and group procedures
Explanation
of treatment using stories
Discussion of reasons for participation (kinds
of stress or trauma)
Session 2*
Education about common reactions to stress or trauma
Relaxation
training to combat anxiety
Session 3
Thoughts and feelings (introduction to cognitive therapy)
Fear
thermometer
Linkage between thoughts and feelings
Combating negative
thoughts
Session 4
Combating negative thoughts
Session 5
Avoidance and coping (introduction to real-life exposure)
Construction
of fear hierarchy
Alternative coping strategies
Session 6
Exposure to stress or trauma memory through imagination/drawing/writing
Session 7
Exposure to stress or trauma memory through imagination/drawing/writing
Session 8
Introduction to social problem solving
Session 9
Practice with social problem solving and hot seat
Session 10
Relapse prevention and graduation ceremony
*Individual session (between session 2 and 6): imaginal exposure to
traumatic event.
The CBITS intervention was implemented on a continuous basis from the
late autumn through the spring of the 2001-2002 academic year by 2 full-time
and 1 part-time psychiatric social workers from the LAUSD Mental Health Services
Unit. The groups most often met once a week. Students were excused from 1
class period to attend the group sessions, which lasted 1 class period. Clinicians
consulted with school administrators and liaison staff to determine when to
conduct the group sessions. The sessions often were offered at different times
each week so that they could be conducted during study halls and other nonacademic
periods when possible, and to minimize the number of times a student would
miss the same academic class.
The CBITS intervention previously had been pilot tested for feasibility
and acceptability; a pilot study using the CBITS intervention manual and format
is reported elsewhere.29 School clinicians
received 2 days of training for application of the intervention and weekly
group supervision from the clinician investigators (B.D.S., L.H.J., S.H.K.).
The school clinicians followed a treatment manual to ensure that the application
of the intervention was standardized across clinicians. However, they had
some flexibility to meet the specific needs of the students in the group.
Assessment of Intervention Integrity
We examined the integrity of the intervention as delivered by the clinicians
compared with the CBITS manual by having an objective clinician rater listen
to randomly selected audiotapes of sessions and assess both the extent of
completion of the session material and the overall quality of therapy provided.
Using a scale developed for this intervention, completion of required intervention
elements, including at least cursory coverage of the topic, varied from 67%
to 100% across sessions, with a mean completion rate of 96%. On 7 items assessing
quality, quality of sessions was moderate to high across sessions.
Data from students, parents, and teachers were collected at baseline,
3 months, and 6 months (Figure 1).
To assess students' symptoms of PTSD, we used the CPSS,30 a
17-item child self-report measure (range, 0-51 points), which has been shown
to have good convergent and discriminant validity, high reliability,30 and high internal consistency29 in
school-aged children. Students rated how often they were bothered by each
symptom in the past month on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 3 (almost always).
For program eligibility, symptoms of PTSD in the clinical range were defined
as a sum score of 14 or more, consistent with moderate clinical levels of
symptoms of PTSD.
Students' symptoms of depression in the past 2 weeks were assessed using
a 26-item Child Depression Inventory (CDI).34 The
CDI (range, 0-52 points) assesses children's cognitive, affective, and behavioral
symptoms of depression, and has good test-retest reliability and validity.35-37 A single item that
assessed suicidality was removed at the request of school personnel.
Child psychosocial dysfunction was assessed using the 35-item Pediatric
Symptom Checklist (PSC) (range, 0-70 points),38-41 in
which the student's parent rated the frequency of the student's emotional
and behavioral problems on a scale from 0 (never) to 2 (often).
Classroom behavior was assessed by having the student's teacher complete
the 6-item Teacher-Child Rating Scale for shyness/anxiousness, learning problems,
and acting out behavior problem subscales (range of subscales, 6-30 points).42 The Teacher-Child Rating Scale, in which teachers
rate how much of a problem each behavior has been on a scale from 1 (not a
problem) to 5 (very serious problem), previously has been used to assess classroom
behavior problems in comparable students.43
We compared the early intervention and delayed intervention group clinical
and demographic characteristics at baseline. To assess the effectiveness of
the intervention, we used linear regression to estimate the mean difference
in outcome scores between the 2 intervention groups at 3 months and at 6 months,
adjusted for scores at baseline. Effect sizes were calculated to assess the
magnitude of intervention effects. These were calculated as the ratio of the
estimated treatment effect (early intervention score minus delayed intervention
score at follow-up, after controlling for baseline scores) to the pooled SD
at baseline.44 All analyses were performed
with Stata version 7.0.45
The enrolled sample of 126 students had substantial levels of exposure
to violence and symptoms of PTSD (Table
1). The mean number of violent events in the previous year experienced
by the students was 2.8 and the mean number witnessed by the students was
5.9. The mean percentage of students who reported experiencing or witnessing
violence involving a knife or gun was 76%. The mean CPSS score was 24.0, indicating
moderate to severe levels of symptoms of PTSD. The mean CDI score was 17.2.
The early intervention and delayed intervention groups did not show significant
differences in baseline values.
The 3-month assessment was completed by 117 students (93%); 113 (90%)
completed the 6-month assessment. At baseline, compared with students who
completed all assessments, noncompleters (n = 13) had higher CPSS scores (mean
difference, 5.4; 95% CI, 1.5-9.4), CDI scores (mean difference, 8.1; 95% CI,
3.0-13.2), acting out classroom behaviors (mean difference, 7.7; 95% CI, 3.4-11.9),
and classroom learning problems (mean difference, 5.2; 95% CI, 0.4-10.0).
Other baseline characteristics between students who completed all assessments
and those who did not were not significantly different.
Outcomes of Early Intervention vs Delayed Intervention Groups
At the 3-month assessment, students in the early intervention group
had significantly lower self-reported symptoms of PTSD than did students in
the delayed intervention group (8.9 vs 15.5) (Table 2). The mean difference between the groups, adjusted for baseline
scale scores, was –7.0 (95% CI, − 10.8 to − 3.2) (Table 2), an effect size of 1.08 SDs. This
result indicates that 86% of the students who underwent CBITS intervention
reported lower scores of symptoms of PTSD at 3 months than what would have
been expected if they had not undergone intervention.44 At
6 months, after the delayed intervention group completed the CBITS intervention,
a difference no longer existed between the groups, with an adjusted mean difference
of 0.3 (8.2 vs 7.2; 95% CI, −3.4 to 3.9) (Table 2 and Figure 2).
Scores for self-reported symptoms of depression also were lower in the
early intervention group at 3 months than in those of the delayed intervention
group, with an adjusted mean difference of –3.4 (9.4 vs 12.7; 95% CI,
− 6.5 to − 0.4), an effect size of 0.45 SDs. This indicates that
67% of the students who underwent CBITS intervention reported lower scores
of symptoms of depression at 3 months than what would have been expected if
they had not undergone intervention. At 6 months, after the delayed intervention
group completed the CBITS intervention, a significant difference no longer
existed in the scores for symptoms of depression between the 2 groups, with
an adjusted mean difference of –0.8 (9.0 vs 10.0; 95% CI, − 4.1
to 2.5) (Table 2 and Figure 2).
Parents of students in the early intervention group reported significantly
less psychosocial dysfunction at 3 months compared with parents of students
in the delayed intervention group (12.5 vs 16.5) (Table 2). The adjusted mean difference was –6.4 (95% CI, −
10.4 to − 2.3), an effect size of 0.77 SDs. This indicates that 78%
of the parents of students who underwent CBITS intervention had less psychosocial
dysfunction at 3 months than what would have been expected if they had not
undergone intervention. At 6 months, after the delayed intervention group
completed the CBITS intervention, the parents of students in the early intervention
and delayed intervention group had similar ratings of child psychosocial dysfunction,
with an adjusted mean difference of –1.9 (9.4 vs 8.9; 95% CI, −
5.8 to 2.1) (Figure 3).
Teachers did not report a significant difference in classroom behavior
between students in the early intervention group and delayed intervention
group (Table 2). At 3 months,
the adjusted mean difference was –1.0 on the acting out behavior scale,
0.1 on the shyness/anxiousness scale, and −1.1 on the learning problems
scale. At 6 months, the adjusted mean difference was −0.9 on the acting
out behavior scale (Table 2 and Figure 4), − 0.9 on the shyness/anxiousness
scale, and − 1.9 on the learning problems scale (Figure 4).
This is the first study to date to use a randomized controlled trial
to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention for children with substantial
levels of symptoms of PTSD who have been exposed to a wide range of violent
events. Complementing the work of other researchers who have developed interventions
for children affected by child sexual abuse,46-48 natural
disasters,49,50 and single-incident
traumas,33 this study takes an important step
toward developing and empirically evaluating a standardized intervention for
children experiencing symptoms following exposure to violence.
Students who received this brief standardized intervention, delivered
by school mental health clinicians on school campuses, had significantly fewer
self-reported symptoms of PTSD and depression, and fewer reports of psychosocial
dysfunction by parents at the 3-month assessment, than did students who were
randomly assigned to a delayed intervention comparison group. The delayed
intervention group experienced a smaller decrease in symptoms of PTSD and
depression while on a waiting list to receive the intervention; when they
received the intervention, they too showed a significant reduction in symptoms
of PTSD and depression. At 6 months, after both groups had received the intervention,
students in both groups had similar levels of symptoms of PTSD, depression,
and psychosocial dysfunction.
In our prior research, we used a quasi-randomized design to examine
the effectiveness of the CBITS intervention in a recent immigrant population
of students in the third through eighth grades in a number of different schools.29 In this study, we were able to evaluate the effectiveness
of the intervention in a fully randomized controlled trial of sixth graders
in the general school population, and we were able to monitor the fidelity
of the intervention. The results of our prior study in recent immigrant students,
combined with results of this study, demonstrate that a carefully implemented
community-based intervention can significantly reduce symptoms of PTSD in
the short term.
During the process of engaging school stakeholders as collaborative
research partners, it became clear that we could have relatively few exclusion
criteria for the intervention program.28 This
had the salutary effect of significantly increasing the generalizability of
the study—for example, by not excluding students with comorbid disorders
unless the student was deemed by the clinician to be too disruptive to participate
in group treatment. Many clinicians have called for such increased generalizability
as efforts are made to develop and evaluate interventions in community settings.51,52
In recent years, there have been increasing calls for developing effective
mental health interventions that can be delivered within the constraints of
community settings in which children and adolescents are commonly seen.53,54 However, such interventions remain
quite rare, and a recent review of school-based interventions noted the paucity
of research in evaluating programs that address symptoms of PTSD,55 despite the high prevalence of symptoms of PTSD in
school-aged children.10,16,19 Recognizing
the need for such programs and the important role that could be played by
schools, the Report of the Surgeon General's Conference
on Children's Mental Health: A National Action Agenda called for an
increase in schools' capacity to meet children's emotional needs.56 Children from poor and minority backgrounds, those
populations who are at highest risk for exposure to violence, are the same
populations whose mental health needs are least likely to be met by the current
health care system.57 Interventions delivered
in schools have the potential for overcoming many of the key barriers to accessing
the health care system faced by these populations.58
For many children, schools have long been the de facto provider of mental
health services.59 School counselors, psychologists,
and social workers traditionally have provided many of these services60; school-based health clinics, which often provide
a range of health care and mental health services to students,61,62 are
another rapidly growing alternative.63
A critical aspect of this program was the collaborative partnership
between school personnel and clinician-researchers. Our frequent consultations
with school staff about implementation issues and our efforts to educate teachers
and administrators about how violence affects children helped to make the
program acceptable and relevant to schools. Close work with school personnel
during CBITS development also ensured that clinicians already working in schools
could implement the program. The study results demonstrate the feasibility
of our approach; school-based clinicians delivered the intervention with integrity
and high quality. However, putting such a program in place does require shifting
some of clinicians' day-to-day responsibilities. More time would be spent
providing standard manual-based treatments for specific psychiatric problems
and less time providing general supportive counseling. In addition, our program
increased detection of mental health symptoms related to violence through
general screening of students instead of relying on referrals from school
staff. Such screening is critical since children experiencing disorders such
as depression or PTSD are unlikely to be recognized and referred for treatment.64,65
The magnitude of the effect of this school-based intervention on child-
and parent-reported outcomes is comparable with that of child psychotherapy
intervention trials for other disorders that have been conducted in more homogeneous
populations66,67 and are considered
"moderate" (for depression) to "very large" (for symptoms of PTSD).44 A national study reported that important risk factors
for child mental health problems, such as poverty and single-parent status,
were associated with PSC scores that were on average 4 points higher than
scores of other children39; less than the 6-point
improvement reported by parents in our intervention group.
Teachers did not report significant improvements in the classroom behavior
of the early intervention group compared with the delayed intervention group
at either 3 months or 6 months. Disagreement about symptoms or diagnosis in
children as rated by children, teachers, and parents is common in studies
using multiple informants, even those that use the same measure,68 and
student's classroom behavior is affected by many factors, not just the child's
mental health. It may be that the improvement in symptoms in the early intervention
group did not translate into improved classroom behavior. Another explanation
is that there may be a time lag before children's symptomatic improvement
translates into improved classroom behavior. This possibility may explain
our finding that adjusted mean differences between the groups for the teacher-reported
measures were approximately the same size or slightly greater at 6 months
than 3 months, while the adjusted mean differences for the child and parent
measures were much smaller at 6 months than 3 months. Teachers also may be
more attuned to disruptive behaviors in their classroom and less aware of
symptoms of anxiety and depression that a child may experience silently. Alternatively,
the Teacher-Child Rating Scale subscales we used may not be as sensitive to
clinical improvement as are the child and parent measures.
The discrepancies between the teachers' assessment and those of other
respondents must be addressed in future research of school-based mental health
programs, as must the impact of such interventions on other outcomes such
as grades. The mission of schools continues to be education, not treatment.
Widespread acceptance of school mental health programs requires more information
about the impact of such programs on school outcomes, as well as data about
whether such programs are cost-effective and can be implemented in ways that
allow reimbursement for providing services.
All students received the intervention within a single academic year.
As a result, we only examined the short-term effectiveness of the program.
The intervention is designed to increase resilience and build coping skills,
so it is possible that the intervention will have a lasting effect on the
students as they face new stressors and traumatic events. At the time of screening,
the students in the study had a high degree of chronic exposure to violence.
It is promising that students who were randomly assigned to the early intervention
group maintained improvement at the 6-month assessment. However, we have no
information about exposure to new violence during this period. Such information
and a longer follow-up period are needed to assess the intervention's long-term
effectiveness and to determine if the program builds resilience as these vulnerable
children face traumatic events in the future. This information also would
tell us more about whether booster sessions or other follow-up might be necessary
for some children. Follow-up over multiple academic years also is needed to
directly examine the program's effect on school grades and other school outcomes.
The CBITS intervention was not compared with a control condition such
as general supportive therapy, but rather with a wait-list delayed intervention.
As a consequence, none of the informants (students, parents, or teachers)
were blinded to the treatment condition. It is possible that the lack of blinding
may have contaminated either the intervention or assessments. School staff
and parents may have provided more attention and support to students who were
eligible for the program while they were on a wait-list; alternatively, respondents
may have been more likely to report improvement in symptoms for those students
for whom they knew had received the intervention. Using blinded evaluators
is an important step for the future, to provide an objective rating of outcomes.
Future research comparing CBITS with an alternative intervention, such
as generic support and attention, also would be an important next step, in
part to reduce biases among respondents, and also to control for the attention
that children receive as being part of the program. However, such designs
often are difficult to implement in school settings, where there is a push
to provide the same program to all students, and randomization to a placebo
can be seen as insensitive to the needs of students and families.69 Further research also is needed to determine if our
findings would be replicated in nonurban and non-Latino populations, and to
examine the intervention's effectiveness in alternative settings treating
large numbers of children, such as pediatric clinics, adolescent medicine
clinics, and community mental health centers.
Violence remains a serious public health problem, the psychological
consequences of which affect children across the country. Yet clinicians working
with such children often have lacked evidence-based treatments. This intervention,
designed in collaboration with the school district in which it was implemented
and delivered by school clinicians, may be a promising model for community-based
programs for children who experience or witness violence, who frequently face
multiple barriers in accessing mental health services.
1.Singer MI, Anglin TM, Song LY, Lunghofer L. Adolescents' exposure to violence and associated symptoms of psychological
trauma.
JAMA.1995;273:477-482.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=7837366
Google Scholar 2.Fitzpatrick KM, Boldizar JP. The prevalence and consequences of exposure to violence among African-American
youth.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry.1993;32:424-430.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=8444774
Google Scholar 3.Richters JE, Martinez P. The NIMH Community Violence Project, I: children as victims of and
witnesses to violence.
Psychiatry.1993;56:7-21.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=8488215
Google Scholar 5.Koop CE, Lundberg GD. Violence in America: a public health emergency; time to bite the bullet
back.
JAMA.1992;267:3075-3076.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=1290487
Google Scholar 6. Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General-Executive Summary . Rockville, Md: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center
for Mental Health Service; and National Institutes of Health, National Institute
of Mental Health; 2001.
7.American School Health Association. The National Adolescent Student Health Survey; A
Report on the Health of America's Youth. Oakland, Calif: Third Party Publishing; 1989.
8.Bell CC, Jenkins EJ. Community violence and children on Chicago's southside: special issue:
children and violence.
Psychiatry.1993;56:46-54.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=8488212
Google Scholar 9.Martinez P, Richters JE. The NIMH Community Violence Project, II: children's distress symptoms
associated with violence exposure.
Psychiatry.1993;56:22-35.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=8488209
Google Scholar 10.Jaycox LH, Stein BD, Kataoka SH.
et al. Violence exposure, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depressive symptoms
among recent immigrant schoolchildren.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry.2002;41:1104-1110.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=12218432
Google Scholar 11.Schwab-Stone M, Chen C, Greenberger E, Silver D, Lichtman J, Voyce C. No safe haven, II: the effects of violence exposure on urban youth.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry.1999;38:359-367.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=10199106
Google Scholar 12.Schubiner H, Scott R, Tzelepis A. Exposure to violence among inner-city youth.
J Adolesc Health.1993;14:214-219.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=8323933
Google Scholar 13.Bureau of Justice Statistics. Age Patterns of Victims of Serious Violent Crime. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice; July 1997. NCJ-162031.
14.Christoffel KK. Violent death and injury in US children and adolescents.
Am J Dis Child.1990;144:697-706.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=2189298
Google Scholar 15.Cuffe SP, Addy CL, Garrison CZ.
et al. Prevalence of PTSD in a community sample of older adolescents.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry.1998;37:147-154.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=9473910
Google Scholar 16.Horowitz K, Weine S, Jekel J. PTSD symptoms in urban adolescent girls: compounded community trauma.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry.1995;34:1353-1361.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=7592273
Google Scholar 17.Berman SL, Kurtines WM, Silverman WK, Serafini LT. The impact of exposure to crime and violence on urban youth.
Am J Orthopsychiatry.1996;66:329-336.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=8827256
Google Scholar 18.Breslau N, Davis GC, Andreski P, Peterson E. Traumatic events and posttraumatic stress disorder in an urban population
of young adults.
Arch Gen Psychiatry.1991;48:216-222.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=1996917
Google Scholar 19.Berton MW, Stabb SD. Exposure to violence and post-traumatic stress disorder in urban adolescents.
Adolescence.1996;31:489-498.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=8726906
Google Scholar 20.Kliewer W, Lepore SJ, Oskin D, Johnson PD. The role of social and cognitive processes in childrens adjustment
to community violence.
J Consult Clin Psychol.1998;66:199-209.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=9489275
Google Scholar 21.Farrell AD, Bruce SE. Impact of exposure to community violence on violent behavior and emotional
distress among urban adolescents.
J Clin Child Psychol.1997;26:2-14.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=9118172
Google Scholar 22.Hurt H, Malmud E, Brodsky NL, Giannetta J. Exposure to violence: psychological and academic correlates in child
witnesses.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.2001;155:1351-1356.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=11732955
Google Scholar 23.Saigh PA, Mroueh M, Bremner JD. Scholastic impairments among traumatized adolescents.
Behav Res Ther.1997;35:429-436.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=9149452
Google Scholar 24.Schwab-Stone ME, Ayers TS, Kasprow W.
et al. No safe haven: a study of violence exposure in an urban community.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry.1995;34:1343-1352.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=7592272
Google Scholar 25.Delaney-Black V, Covington C, Ondersma SJ.
et al. Violence exposure, trauma, and IQ and/or reading deficits among urban
children.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.2002;156:280-285.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=11876674
Google Scholar 26.Pynoos RS, Steinberg AM, Goenjian A. Traumatic stress in childhood and adolescence: recent developments
and current controversies. In: van der Kolk BA, McFarlane AC, Weisaeth L, eds. Traumatic Stress: The Effects of Overwhelming Experience on Mind, Body, and
Society. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1996:331-358.
27.Pine DS, Cohen JA. Trauma in children and adolescents: risk and treatment of psychiatric
sequelae.
Biol Psychiatry.2002;51:519-531.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=11950454
Google Scholar 28.Stein BD, Kataoka S, Jaycox LH.
et al. Theoretical basis and program design of a school-based mental health
intervention for traumatized immigrant children: a collaborative research
partnership.
J Behav Health Serv Res.2002;29:318-326.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=12216375
Google Scholar 29.Kataoka SH, Stein BD, Jaycox LH.
et al. A school-based mental health program for traumatized Latino immigrant
children.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry.2003;42:311-318.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=12595784
Google Scholar 30.Foa EB, Johnson K, Feeny NC, Treadwell K. The child PTSD symptom scale (CPSS): a preliminary examination of its
psychometric properties.
J Clin Child Psychol.2001;30:376-384.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=11501254
Google Scholar 31. Microsoft Excel for MAC 2001 . Redmond, Wash: Microsoft; 2001.
32.Jaycox L. Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools. Longmont, Colo: Sopris West Educational Services. In press.
33.March JS, Amaya-Jackson L, Murray MC, Schulte A. Cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy for children and adolescents with
posttraumatic stress disorder after a single-incident stressor.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry.1998;37:585-593.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=9628078
Google Scholar 34.Kovacs M. The Children's Depression Inventory Manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems, Inc; 1992.
35.Finch Jr AJ, Saylor CF, Edwards GL. Children's depression inventory: sex and grade norms for normal children.
J Consult Clin Psychol.1985;53:424-425.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=4008727
Google Scholar 36.Kendall PC, Cantwell D, Kazdin AE. Depression in children and adolescents: assessment issues and recommendations.
Cogn Ther Res.1989;13:109-146.Google Scholar 37.Kovacs M. Rating scales to assess depression in school-aged children.
Acta Paedopsychiatr.1981;46:305-315.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=7025571
Google Scholar 38.Gall G, Pagano ME, Desmond MS, Perrin JM, Murphy JM. Utility of psychosocial screening at a school-based health center.
J Sch Health.2000;70:292-298.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=10981284
Google Scholar 39.Jellinek MS, Murphy JM, Little M, Pagano ME, Comer DM, Kelleher KJ. Use of the Pediatric Symptom Checklist to screen for psychosocial problems
in pediatric primary care: a national feasibility study.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.1999;153:254-260.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=10086402
Google Scholar 40.Jellinek MS, Murphy JM, Burns BJ. Brief psychosocial screening in outpatient pediatric practice.
J Pediatr.1986;109:371-378.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=3734977
Google Scholar 41.Murphy JM, Reede J, Jellinek MS, Bishop SJ. Screening for psychosocial dysfunction in inner-city children: further
validation of the Pediatric Symptom checklist.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry.1992;31:1105-1111.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=1429413
Google Scholar 42.Hightower AD, Work WC, Cowen EL.
et al. The Teacher-Child Rating scale: a brief objective measure of elementary
children's school problem behaviors and competencies.
School Psych Rev.1986;15:393-409.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=12342622
Google Scholar 43.Zima BT, Bussing R, Freeman S, Yang X, Belin T, Forness S. Behavior problems, academic skill delays and school failure among school-aged
children in foster care: their relationship to placement characteristics.
J Child Family Studies.2000;9:87-103.Google Scholar 44.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
45.StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 7.0. College Station, Tex: Stata Corporation; 2001.
46.Cohen JA, Mannarino AP. A treatment outcome study for sexually abused preschool children.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry.1996;35:42-50.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=8567611
Google Scholar 47.Deblinger E, Heflin AH. Treating sexually abused children and their nonoffending parents: a
cognitive behavioral approach. Vol 256. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, Inc; 1996.
48.Farrell SP, Hains AA, Davies WH. Cognitive behavioral interventions for sexually abused children exhibiting
PTSD symptomatology.
Behav Ther.1998;29:241-255.Google Scholar 49.Goenjian AK, Karayan I, Pynoos RS.
et al. Outcome of psychotherapy among early adolescents after trauma.
Am J Psychiatry.1997;154:536-542.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=9090342
Google Scholar 50.Chemtob CM, Nakashima JP, Hamada RS. Psychosocial intervention for postdisaster trauma symptoms in elementary
school children.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.2002;156:211-216.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=11876663
Google Scholar 51.Weisz JR. Agenda for child and adolescent psychotherapy research: on the need
to put science into practice.
Arch Gen Psychiatry.2000;57:837-838.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=10986545
Google Scholar 52.Schoenwald SK, Hoagwood K. Effectiveness, transportability, and dissemination of interventions:
what matters when.
Psychiatr Serv.2001;52:1190-1197.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=11533392
Google Scholar 53.Hoagwood K, Hibbs E, Brent D, Jensen P. Introduction to the special section: efficacy and effectiveness in
studies of child and adolescent psychotherapy.
J Consult Clin Psychol.1995;63:683-687.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=7593860
Google Scholar 54.Weisz JR, Donenberg GR, Han SS, Weiss B. Bridging the gap between laboratory and clinic in child and adolescent
psychotherapy.
J Consult Clin Psychol.1995;63:688-701.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=7593861
Google Scholar 55.Rones M, Hoagwood K. School-based mental health services: a research review.
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev.2000;3:223-241.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=11225738
Google Scholar 56.US Public Health Service. Report of the Surgeon General's conference on children's mental health:
a national action agenda. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2000.
57.Kataoka SH, Zhang L, Wells KB. Unmet need for mental health care among US children: variation by ethnicity
and insurance status.
Am J Psychiatry.2002;159:1548-1555.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=12202276
Google Scholar 58.Garrison EG, Roy IS, Azar V. Responding to the mental health needs of Latino children and families
through school-based services.
Clin Psychol Rev.1999;19:199-219.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=10078420
Google Scholar 59.Burns BJ, Costello EJ, Angold A.
et al. Children's mental health service use across service sectors.
Health Aff (Millwood).1995;14(3):147-159.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=7498888
Google Scholar 60.Flaherty LT, Garrison EG, Waxman R.
et al. Optimizing the roles of school mental health professionals.
J Sch Health.1998;68:420-424.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=9919497
Google Scholar 61.Dryfoos J. New approaches to the organization of health and social services in
schools. In : Schools and Health: Our Nation's Investment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997:373-375.
62.Adelman H, Barker L, Nelson P. A study of a school-based clinic: who uses it and who doesn't.
J Clin Child Psychol.1993;22:52-59.Google Scholar 64.Cohen JA. American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry Work Group on Quality
Issues: practice parameters for the assessment and treatment of children and
adolescents with posttraumatic stress disorder.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Special Issue: Practice Parameters.1998;37(10 suppl):4S-26S.Google Scholar 65.Cantwell D, Lewinsohn P, Rohde P, Seeley J. Correspondence between adolescent report and parent report of psychiatric
diagnostic criteria.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry.1997;36:610-619.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=9136495
Google Scholar 66.Weisz JR, Weiss B, Alicke MD, Klotz ML. Effectiveness of psychotherapy with children and adolescents: a meta-analysis
for clinicians.
J Consult Clin Psychol.1987;55:542-549.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=3624610
Google Scholar 67.Weisz JR, Weiss B, Donenberg GR. The lab versus the clinic: effects of child and adolescent psychotherapy.
Am Psychol.1992;47:1578-1585.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=1476328
Google Scholar 68.Achenbach TM, McConaughy SH, Howell CT. Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of
cross-informant correlations for situational specificity.
Psychol Bull.1987;101:213-232.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=3562706
Google Scholar 69.Dumas JE, Rollock D, Prinz RJ, Hops H, Blechman EA. Cultural sensitivity: problems and solutions in applied and preventive
intervention.
Appl Prev Psychol.1999;8:175-196.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=12318905
Google Scholar