The Effectiveness of the Strengthening Families Intervention Program on the Resiliency of Adolescents with High-Risk Behaviors Living in Kermanshah City, Iran

Mohammadkhani, Shahram; Paydar, Masoud; Hasani, Jaffar; Nouri, Robabe

doi:10.29252/mejds.0.0.14

Volume 12 - Articles-1401 MEJDS (2022) 12: 126 | Back to browse issues page

‎ 10.29252/mejds.0.0.14

‎ 20.1001.1.23222840.1399.0.0.14.3

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Mohammadkhani S, Paydar M, Hasani J, Nouri R. The Effectiveness of the Strengthening Families Intervention Program on the Resiliency of Adolescents with High-Risk Behaviors Living in Kermanshah City, Iran. MEJDS 2022; 12 :126-126
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1076-en.html

The Effectiveness of the Strengthening Families Intervention Program on the Resiliency of Adolescents with High-Risk Behaviors Living in Kermanshah City, Iran

Shahram Mohammadkhani¹

, Masoud Paydar ^*²

, Jaffar Hasani¹

, Robabe Nouri¹

1- Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Kharazmi University of Tehran
2- Welfare Organization, Kermanshah

Abstract: (3128 Views)

Background & Objective: The strengthening families program (SFP) 10–14 (Kumpfer et al. 1996) is a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services (SAMHSA) designed model program. The program has undergone scientific review by the national registry of evidence–based programs, and practices and has been used in many communities. The program outcomes showed decreased substance use and risk behaviors among the sixth– and seventh–grade students and child's adjustment and resiliency. The program could enhance family protective factors and reduce risk behaviors among family processes. This paper aims to report the results of a preliminary examination of the efficacy of the SFP 10–14 on the resiliency of high–risk adolescents.
Methods: This quasi–experimental study has a pretest–posttest and follow–up design with a control group. The study population included all adolescents aged 12 to 16 years living in Kermanshah City (Kermanshah Province, West of Iran) in 2016–17. In order to select the samples, in the first stage, a call was made for holding classes to promote family education among schools and educational centers for adolescents in Kermanshah. In the second stage, among all adolescents and parents enrolled in this call (225 people), 40 adolescents with the following criteria were selected: aged 12 to 16 years; no history of participation in a workshop or a class for the prevention of addiction or other high–risk behaviors; lack of behavioral, mood, or emotional problems; lack of adolescent drug and alcoholic beverages; and the ability to participate in 7 educational sessions. The inclusion criteria for parents were as follows: parents between the ages of 23 and 65, being the main caregivers (biological or non–biological), having a teenager in target schools, and living at least 1 year in a target society. The participants' satisfaction was recorded, and the ethical standards of the research were respected. Subjects were then assigned randomly to the experimental group (n=20) and the control group (n=20), but the study was completed with 15 families and adolescents in the control group and 17 families and adolescents in the experimental group. After determining the sample, all selected adolescents were invited to the educational center of the welfare organization's counseling center. The training of the SFP was implemented in 7 180–minute sessions, once a week for the experimental group, with emphasis on the principles of the curriculum by the workshop's instructor (PhD specialist in psychology) under the supervisor's guidance (Dr. Mohammadkhani). Besides doing their daily activities, the control group participated in a 2–hour session on life skills. On the last day of the training session, a posttest was taken from the experimental group and one day later from the control group at the educational salon of the welfare organization's counseling center. Forty–five days after the completion of the training period, the participants of the control and experimental groups were tested again (follow–up phase). Descriptive statistics, such as mean and standard deviation, and inferential statistics, such as repeated measures analysis of variance (with p=0.05 as the significance level), were used to analyze the data based on observing the assumptions of this statistical method. Data analysis was done in SPSS–21.
Results: Repeated measures analysis of variance showed that the family strengthening program training increased resiliency of adolescents with high–risk behavior in the experimental group compared to the control group at posttest and follow–up.
Conclusion: The present study showed that the family enhancement curriculum increased the resilience of adolescents with high–risk behaviors. In this regard, it seems that this program can be used in organizations that deal with abusive and high–risk adolescent affairs as an intervention. The selective enhancement of adaptation and reduction of high–risk behaviors in this context, with appropriate training to promote mental health and resilience to counteract high–risk behaviors during this critical life cycle, should be considered.

Keywords: Resiliency, High–Risk behavior, Adolescents, Family strengthening program

Full-Text [PDF 619 kb] (386 Downloads)

Type of Study: Original Research Article | Subject: Psychology

References

1. Buehler C, Gerard JM. Cumulative family risk predicts increases in adjustment difficulties across early adolescence. J Youth Adolesc. 2013;42(6):905–20. [DOI]

2. Kumpfer KL, Magalhães C, Xie J. Cultural adaptations of evidence-based family interventions to strengthen families and improve children's developmental outcomes. Eur J Dev Psychol. 2012;9(1):104–16. [DOI]

3. Szapocznik J, Perez-Vidal A, Brickman AL, Foote FH, Santisteban D, Hervis O, et al. Engaging adolescent drug abusers and their families in treatment: a strategic structural systems approach. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1988;56(4):552–7. [DOI]

4. Hawkins JD, Kosterman R, Catalano RF, Hill KG, Abbott RD. Promoting positive adult functioning through social development intervention in childhood: Long-term effects from the Seattle social development project. Arch Pediatr Adolescent Med. 2005;159(1):25–31. [DOI]

5. Skärstrand E, Larsson J, Andréasson S. Cultural adaptation of the strengthening families programme to a Swedish setting. Health Education. 2008;108(4):287–300. [DOI]

6. Kann L, Kinchen S, Shanklin SL, Flint KH, Hawkins J, Harris WA, et al. Youth Risk Behavior Surveilliance—United States, 2013. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC). 2014;63:216–24. [Article]

7. Selected Population and Housing census results in 2012 [Internet]. 18 Feb 2012 [cited 18 Feb 2012]. Iran Statistic Centre. [Persian]. [Article]

8. Lynn CJ, Acri MC, Goldstein L, Bannon W, Beharie N, McKay MM. Improving youth mental health through family-based prevention in family homeless shelters. Child and Youth Services Review. 2014;44:243–8. [DOI]

9. Greenley RN, Taylor HG, Drotar D, Minich NM. Longitudinal relationships between early adolescent family functioning and youth adjustment: an examination of the moderating role of very low birth weight. J Pediatr Psychol. 2007;32(4):453–62. [DOI]

10. Hemphill SA. Characteristics of conduct-disordered children and their families: a review. Australian Psychology. 1996;31(2):109–18. [DOI]

11. Hemphill SA, Littlefield L. Child and family predictors of therapy outcome for children with behavioral and emotional problems. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2006;36(3):329–49. [DOI]

12. Herman KC, Ostrander R, Tucker CM. Do family environments and negative cognitions of adolescents with depressive symptoms vary by ethnic group?J Fam Psychol.2007;21(2):325–30. [DOI]

13. Kosterman R, Hawkins JD, Spoth R, Haggerty KP, Zhu K. Effects of a preventive parent‐training intervention on observed family interactions: proximal outcomes from preparing for the drug free years. J Community Psychol. 1997;25(4):237–352. [DOI]

14. Kumpfer KL, Molgaard V, Spoth R. The strengthening families program for the prevention of delinquency and drug use. In Peters RD, McMahon RJ. Banff international behavioral science series, Vol 3. Preventing childhood disorders, substance abuse, and delinquency. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications; 1996, pp:241-67. [DOI]

15. Lewandowski A, Drotar D. The relationship between parent-reported social support and adherence to medical treatment in families of adolescents with type 1 diabetes. J Pediatr Psychol. 2007;32(4):427–36. [DOI]

16. Liu X, Sun Z, Yang Y. Parent-reported suicidal behavior and correlates among adolescents in China. J Affect Disord. 2008;105(1-3):73–80. [DOI]

17. Lynam MJ, Tenn L. Communication: a tool for the negotiation of independence in families with adolescents. J Adv Nurs. 1989;14(8):653–60. [DOI]

18. Mohammad Khani Sh. Elaboration and standardization of the risk and protective factors for alcohol, cigarette and other substances to identify high-risk students. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in Iran. 2012:1(2):113-125. [Persian]

19. Mohammadi M. Investigating the Resiliency Factors among Highly Adolescents. Humanities and Behavioral Studies Journal. 2014; 11(2):153-71.[Persian]

20. Molgaard VK, Kumpfer KL, Fleming E. The Strengthening Families Program: for Parents and Iowa Youth 10-14 Leader Guide. Iowa State University Extension. Ames, IA: 1997.

21. Viikinsalo MK, Crawford DM, Kimbrel H, Long AE, Dashiff C. Conflicts between young adolescents with type I diabetes and their parents. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2005;10(2):69–79. [DOI]

22. Wakeling HC. The psychometric validation of the Social Problem-Solving Inventory – Revised with UK incarcerated sexual offenders. Sex Abuse. 2007;19(3):217–36. [DOI]

23. Mohammadkhani Sh. Risk and protective factors of alcohol, tobacco and other illicit drugs used among 13 to 18 years-old adolescents. Educational Psychology. 2008: 4(12): 38-69.[Persian] [Article]