Guide to Effective Programs
for Children and Youth

Social Problem-Solving (SPS)

OVERVIEW

The Social Problem-Solving (SPS) program was designed to give children in elementary school with deficits in social problem-solving the skills necessary to succeed in daily social interactions. The SPS program specifically seeks to improve conflict resolution skills by focusing on three areas of development: problem identification, alternative solution generation, and anticipation of consequences. In the study outlined below, three schools were randomly assigned. Analyses indicate that the Social Problem-Solving program is effective in increasing the problem-solving skills of alternative solution generation and consequential thinking. Positive impacts were found for both the full package group and the video-only group, compared with the control group. Mixed results were found with respect to teacher-rated behavioral measures such as peer sociability and overall competence. In a slightly older sample with two experimental groups (differing in dosage), the group that met twice a week for 50 minutes was superior to the group that met once a week for 90 minutes and to the control group in gains in comprehension. However, the once a week group showed greater gains in activity competence, compared with the twice a week group and the control group, and the once a week group also improved more on externalizing symptoms, compared with the control group. Both experimental groups also shower greater improvement compared with the control group on generating problem solutions.

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

Target population: Children in 2^nd and 3^rd grades in suburban, lower middle class, primarily white schools

The SPS program is designed to provide children with skills for effective conflict resolution as well as social problem coping. The program has three main components to address these goals: problem identification, alternative solution generation, and anticipation of consequences. Within these three components, children are taught problem-solving steps intended for daily use. These steps consist of understanding the problem, deciding on a positive outcome, thinking before acting, generating multiple solutions, understanding consequences of each potential solution, and implementing an appropriate solution. Program sessions includes a variety of interactive activities such as class discussion, video instruction, role playing, and learning games.

EVALUATION(S) OF PROGRAM

Study 1

Gesten, E. L., Rains, M. H., Rapkin, B. D., Weissberg, R. P., Flores de Apocada, R., Cowen, E. L., & Bowen, R. (1982). Training children in social problem-solving competencies: A first and second look. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 95-115.

Evaluated population: 201 children in second and third grades. All subjects were from lower middle class economic backgrounds and mostly white suburban areas.

Approach: Three schools were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: full-package curriculum (N=65), videotape-only curriculum (N=68), and control (N=68). The full-package curriculum condition involved 17 sessions of 30 to 30 minutes each which included interactive activities, videos, and discussions. The videotape-only condition involved 5 sessions which lasted 40 minutes each. Each session contained a short overview, video lesson, and class discussion. Control groups received no treatment, but it is noted that discussions about conflicts and problem solving were part of daily classroom activities. At 9 weeks, children were assessed on measures of problem-solving abilities and behavioral adjustment. At a one-year follow-up, 138 of the original study’s 201 children were assessed again on these measures.

Results: Students in the full-package condition generated more alternative solutions and had improved consequential thinking when compared with students in both the video-only and control conditions. At 9 weeks, students in the control group outperformed students in the experimental condition on teacher-rated measures of shyness-anxiousness, total problems, peer sociability, rule following, frustration tolerance, and total competence. The researchers provide some explanation of these results and attribute it partly to teachers’ knowledge of assigned condition. This problem is corrected for in the second follow-up study by blinding teachers to the students’ program involvement in the previous year. The follow-up study randomly selected 138 students for follow-up assessments 12 months later. This follow-up found that the full-package group performed higher than the video-only and control conditions on measures of consequential thinking. Treatment groups performed better than control groups on 7 out of 10 teacher-rated behaviors. The small number of schools is a limitation.

Study 2

Yu, P., Harris, G. E., et al. (1986). A social problem-solving intervention for children at high risk for later psychopathology. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 15, 1, 30-40

Evaluated population: Thirty-five male psychiatric and clinic outpatients ages seven to twelve were evaluated in this efficacy trial. Most of the children were from single-parents families (61 percent); 40 percent were black, 54 percent were white, and 6 percent were Hispanic families. The attrition rate was 35 percent.

Approach: The treatment condition was the Rochester Social Problem Solving Program, which consisted of 34 structured lessons covering topics of understanding feelings, recognizing problems, generating problem solutions, evaluating consequences, and implementing solutions. Each lesson included an activity, such as a crossword puzzle, role playing, group discussion, and drawing.

Participants were assigned to two experimental groups (Group 1 N=6, Group 2 N=7) or a control group (N=10). The first experimental group met twice a week for 50 minutes per session, and the program duration was 20 weeks. The second group met once a week for 90 minutes, and the program duration was 20 weeks. Parental involvement in parent groups was a critical component of the treatment. The control group used the usual and customary treatments offered at the clinic. Data were collected on social-cognitive problem-solving skills and behavioral adjustment.

Results: Group 1 showed greater improvement than Group 2 and the control group on comprehension, and both groups improved more than the control group in terms of generating solutions for problems with peer related issues. Group 2 showed greater improvement compared with Group1 and the control group in terms of competence at non-school activities, such as chores or sports. Group 2 also showed greater improvements in externalizing (acting out) symptoms compared with the control group.

Despite random assignment, the second treatment group was advantaged socioeconomically relative to the first treatment group, reflecting the small sample size, which represents a caveat regarding the findings.

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION

References

Mannarino, A. P., Christy, M., Durlak, J. A., & Magnussen, M. G. (1982). Evaluation of social competence training in the schools. Journal of Schools Psychology, 20(1).

Weissberg, R. P., Gesten, E. L., Rapkin, B. D., Cowen, E. L., Davidson, E., Flores de Apocada, R., & McKim, B. J. (1981). Evaluation of a social-problem-solving training program for suburban and inner-city third-grade children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49(2), 251-261.

Yu, P., G. E. Harris, et al. (1986). A Social Problem-Solving Intervention for Children at High Risk for Later Psychopathology. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 15, 1, 30-40.

KEYWORDS: Children (3-11), Male Only, Males and Females (Co-Ed), Suburban, Skills Training, Conduct/Disruptive Disorders, Other Behavioral Problems, Social Skills/Life Skills, Adolescents (12-17).