Can Peer Acceptance and Perceptual Accuracy Impact the Effectiveness of Two Formats of a Preventative Intervention on Functional Subtypes of Aggression in Youth?
Saved in:
| Title: | Can Peer Acceptance and Perceptual Accuracy Impact the Effectiveness of Two Formats of a Preventative Intervention on Functional Subtypes of Aggression in Youth? |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Meagan E. Heilman (ORCID |
| Source: | Prevention Science. 2025 26(4):621-632. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 12 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Intervention, At Risk Persons, Aggression, Social Status, Preadolescents, Social Development, Antisocial Behavior, Peer Acceptance, Accuracy, Perception, Program Effectiveness |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11121-025-01767-1 |
| ISSN: | 1389-4986 1573-6695 |
| Abstract: | Coping Power (CP) is an empirically supported school-based intervention for children at risk for aggression. A child's social status with peers and the extent to which they accurately perceive it are important aspects of preadolescent social development that may influence how intervention format affects disruptive behavior outcomes. Further, reactive (RA) and proactive (PA) functional subtypes of aggression have differential relations with peer acceptance. This study is the first to test whether the effects of group (GCP) and individual (ICP) format of CP on RA and PA differed based on children's actual social status (aim 1) and whether they over- or underestimated their acceptance relative to their actual social status (perceptual accuracy; aim 2). This study involved secondary data analyses using a large-scale randomized controlled trial that assigned 360 children ages 9 to 11 (M = 9.74, SD = 0.62), predominantly male (n = 234, 65%), and Black (n = 273, 75.8%), with elevated levels of aggression to either ICP or GCP condition. Polynomial regression analyses and three-dimensional response surface plots tested and probed significant (p < 0.05) interactions between either actual acceptance or perceptual accuracy and intervention format on postintervention reactive and proactive aggression. Actual acceptance moderated the effects of GCP on RA, such that those with higher acceptance showed smaller reductions in RA from either preintervention or postintervention to follow-up. Perceptual accuracy also moderated the effects of ICP on PA, with those underestimating their acceptance showing smaller decreases in PA from postintervention to follow-up. These findings provide valuable insights into how children's actual peer acceptance and perceptual accuracy influence CP outcomes for different functional subtypes of aggression based on intervention format, raising important questions about potential mechanisms. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1476135 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFK-pDMivb_9bajnZxe3n-TAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCUL8CDJGg2C9gFiVAIBEICBmitstIWcBOJm9TF3JZ2WgPvx-Bs9J5y_3yxVFb6EdSzhIKtVhJt67SpPkOXBpMABU6gdGCTCJrVMl6dvvjEAddYLjNxQ4GOOPhNTt8qvMQs92Lxf1LPD15IdEQW_-5OzFt58YUJ7d4dtQ8QymdKPe9X3YRuBIzmplTr-U1CkSBuDilHRHsiijC8_s1mvXQ3qhSrTISsyg84sEj0= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0186289603;n9p01may.25;2025Jul02.05:01;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186289603-1">Can Peer Acceptance and Perceptual Accuracy Impact the Effectiveness of Two Formats of a Preventative Intervention on Functional Subtypes of Aggression in Youth? </title> <p>Coping Power (CP) is an empirically supported school-based intervention for children at risk for aggression. A child's social status with peers and the extent to which they accurately perceive it are important aspects of preadolescent social development that may influence how intervention format affects disruptive behavior outcomes. Further, reactive (RA) and proactive (PA) functional subtypes of aggression have differential relations with peer acceptance. This study is the first to test whether the effects of group (GCP) and individual (ICP) format of CP on RA and PA differed based on children's actual social status (aim 1) and whether they over- or underestimated their acceptance relative to their actual social status (perceptual accuracy; aim 2). This study involved secondary data analyses using a large-scale randomized controlled trial that assigned 360 children ages 9 to 11 (M = 9.74, SD =.62), predominantly male (n = 234, 65%), and Black (n = 273, 75.8%), with elevated levels of aggression to either ICP or GCP condition. Polynomial regression analyses and three-dimensional response surface plots tested and probed significant (p &lt;.05) interactions between either actual acceptance or perceptual accuracy and intervention format on postintervention reactive and proactive aggression. Actual acceptance moderated the effects of GCP on RA, such that those with higher acceptance showed smaller reductions in RA from either preintervention or postintervention to follow-up. Perceptual accuracy also moderated the effects of ICP on PA, with those underestimating their acceptance showing smaller decreases in PA from postintervention to follow-up. These findings provide valuable insights into how children's actual peer acceptance and perceptual accuracy influence CP outcomes for different functional subtypes of aggression based on intervention format, raising important questions about potential mechanisms.</p> <p>Keywords: Coping power; Peer acceptance; Aggression functional subtypes; Psychology and Cognitive Sciences Psychology</p> <p>Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-025-01767-1.</p> <p>Aggression in childhood can become stable over time and is often linked to difficulties in peer relationships and other problematic behaviors, such as criminal activity, substance use, and intimate partner violence (Kassing et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref1">22</reflink>]; Piquero et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref2">45</reflink>]). These difficulties not only affect the individual youth and their victims but also families and society (e.g., Rivenbark et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref3">50</reflink>]). It is thus important to develop effective interventions for children at risk for aggressive behavior, whose intervention needs and responses may differ based on individual risk and protective factors (e.g., Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref4">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Aggressive behaviors can reflect distinguishable functions that differ in their contributing risk factors and impacts, potentially necessitating distinct intervention approaches. Reactive aggression (RA), in accordance with the frustration-aggression model (Berkowitz, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>]; Dollard et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref6">11</reflink>]), is characterized as impulsive behavior intended to harm others, such as retaliating toward another for wrongdoing. In contrast, proactive aggression (PA), conceptually grounded in social learning theory (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>]), is considered preplanned other-harming behavior for secondary gain (Dodge, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref8">9</reflink>]). While these functional subtypes of aggression represent distinguishable processes and have unique correlates (e.g., White et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref9">55</reflink>]), they also tend to be moderately to highly correlated (e.g., Polman et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref10">46</reflink>]), complicating their distinction. Nevertheless, considering the distinct features of RA and PA might help inform the tailoring of interventions to individual risk factors (e.g., skill deficits).</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-2">Peer Acceptance and Aggression</hd> <p>Peer acceptance plays a crucial role in child development; however, it can be negatively impacted by aggressive behavior, which can further increase the risk of aggression (Ettekal &amp; Mohammadi, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref11">14</reflink>]). The link between aggression and peer rejection is greater for reactive aggression than for proactive aggression (Poulin &amp; Boivin, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref12">47</reflink>]; Vitaro et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref13">53</reflink>]). Children who are accepted by their peers tend to experience higher self-esteem, better school adjustment and academic achievement, and better-quality friendships, positive indicators that are also associated with higher social competence (Gifford-Smith &amp; Brownell, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref14">17</reflink>]; McDonald &amp; Asher, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref15">40</reflink>]). Children with aggressive behaviors frequently exhibit deficits in these areas (Vitaro et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref16">53</reflink>]). Similarly, children who are peer-rejected (Bierman, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref17">5</reflink>]) experience greater academic difficulties, aggression, loneliness, depression, anxiety, and delinquency (McDonald &amp; Asher, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref18">40</reflink>]). Research has shown this relation in the other direction as well, such that aggressive children are at risk for peer rejection, which then exacerbates their aggression and other problems (e.g., Ettekal &amp; Ladd, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref19">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-3">Accurate Perceptions (Versus Overestimation or Underestimation) of Peer Acceptance</hd> <p>Some accurately perceive the level of their social acceptance by peers (i.e., high agreement), while others have inaccurate (i.e., discrepant) self-perceptions, reflecting either over-estimation (OE), where self-perceived acceptance is higher than their peer-rated (i.e., actual) acceptance, or under-estimation (UE), where self-perceived acceptance is lower than actual peer acceptance. Inaccurate perceptions of one's social acceptance can contribute to a child's social difficulties. For instance, children who overestimate their actual acceptance by peers tend to exhibit problems such as aggression, delinquency, and perpetrator of bullying (Lynch et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref20">39</reflink>]; Pardini et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref21">44</reflink>]). Further, Lynch and colleagues (Lynch et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref22">39</reflink>]) found that OE was related to children's aggression regardless of their actual acceptance level. Such outcomes appear to support Baumeister's threatened egotism hypothesis, which suggests that overestimation of acceptance increases the likelihood of receiving negative social feedback that is discrepant from one's (inflated) self-views, increasing aggressive responding (Baumeister et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>]), perhaps to pressure other children to treat them as they believe they deserve (Orobio de Castro et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref24">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>On the other hand, those with low perceived social acceptance are more likely to display irritability and aggressive outbursts often associated with mood difficulties (Prinstein et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref25">49</reflink>]). Internalizing problems (e.g., depression) are also related to low self-perception of acceptance (Pardini et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref26">44</reflink>]; Prinstein et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref27">49</reflink>]) and can co-occur with and exacerbate externalizing problems (e.g., Lee &amp; Stone, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref28">24</reflink>]). Findings by Pardini and colleagues (Pardini et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref29">44</reflink>]) suggested that UE in particular is associated with higher levels of externalizing problems at home regardless of a child's level of actual peer acceptance at school. Further, Sandstrom and Herlan ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref30">51</reflink>]) found that UE was more strongly associated with aggression in response to peer criticism than OE. This finding is consistent with the rejection sensitivity hypothesis, which suggests that children with elevated anticipation, perception, and emotional response to real or perceived social rejection are more sensitive to negative feedback from peers (Sandstrom &amp; Herlan, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref31">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research in this domain suggests it may be important to also consider the function of their aggressive behaviors. (Vitaro et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref32">53</reflink>]). For example, White and Kistner ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref33">54</reflink>]) found that for children who were rejected by peers, both OE and UE were associated with elevated RA, whereas this relation was not present in non-rejected children. Further, the accuracy of perceived acceptance was not associated with PA, regardless of actual acceptance. Despite the interest and growing literature on RA and PA (Fite et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref34">15</reflink>]), there is overall a paucity of research that considers the relation between functional subtypes of aggression and biases in peer acceptance, especially in the context of interventions for child aggression. However, it is important to understand these relations in order to provide more individually tailored interventions.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-4">Coping Power</hd> <p>Coping Power (CP; Lochman &amp; Wells, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref35">35</reflink>]) is an empirically supported, school-based cognitive-behavioral intervention designed to target aggression in youth with conduct problems. The intervention modules were created based on the social-cognitive model of aggression, which proposes that problematic behaviors emerge in adolescence due to contextual (e.g., poor parental involvement, inconsistent discipline) and child-level (e.g., poor social-cognitive skills, poor decision-making skills, perceived peer context) risk factors (Lochman &amp; Wells, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref36">35</reflink>]). In randomized clinical trials, Coping Power has produced, through 1- to 3-year follow-ups, reductions in children's aggressive and conduct problem behaviors, covert delinquency, and substance use (e.g., Lochman &amp; Wells, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref37">36</reflink>]; Lochman et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref38">38</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref39">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref40">28</reflink>]), in comparison to service-as-usual children. Although research has examined whether social skills interventions can influence the peer acceptance and rejection of peer-rejected and aggressive children (e.g. Lochman et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref41">27</reflink>]; Nesdale &amp; Duffy, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref42">42</reflink>]; Vitaro et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref43">53</reflink>]), CP intervention studies have not examined whether the intervention might be influenced by (as a moderator) or influence (as an outcome) peer acceptance.</p> <p>Factors addressed in CP, including socio-cognitive skills and the perceived peer context (Lochman et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref44">33</reflink>]), also bear upon peer acceptance and rejection as well as perceptions of peer relationships, domains in which aggressive children often struggle (McDonald &amp; Asher, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref45">40</reflink>]). Although impacts of the accuracy of peer acceptance on CP efficacy in reducing aggressive behavior have not been previously examined, related research has found that a biological marker of children's degree of social bonds has moderated CP outcome effects (Glenn et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref46">19</reflink>]). CP efficacy on aggression outcomes may be influenced by other aspects of children's peer functioning as well, including the nature of children's perceptions of their peer acceptance, especially among children who are already struggling with poor peer relationships.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-5">CP Group vs. Individual Formats—Is One Superior, or Does It Depend?</hd> <p>A main concern regarding group interventions for aggression such as CP is that they may be iatrogenic due to peer contagion effects (Dishion &amp; Tipsord, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref47">8</reflink>]; Poulin et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref48">48</reflink>]). However, the impacts of peer contagion may depend on peer acceptance variables. For instance, children who are peer-rejected may be more vulnerable if they are more inclined to seek peer acceptance by engaging in reinforced deviant behaviors (Dishion &amp; Tipsord, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref49">8</reflink>]). In keeping with the social-cognitive model of aggression, children with maladaptive social-cognitive processes lack social-problem skills, are more susceptible to influences by delinquent same-age peers, and are more prone to develop aggressive behaviors (Anderson &amp; Huesmann, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>]). Thus, for some children, ICP may be more beneficial than GCP.</p> <p>Despite these concerns, providing a highly structured group intervention has many potential benefits. In addition to practical factors such as cost and resource savings, the group setting provides a real-time, naturalistic setting for practicing social and self-regulation skills and for receiving peer feedback. Additionally, learning to work cooperatively with others normalizes the use of nonaggressive conflict-resolution strategies (Lochman et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref51">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref52">28</reflink>]). Such qualities offered by a group CP format may be particularly beneficial for aggressive children who are experiencing distorted perceptions of their actual acceptance.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-6">The Current Study</hd> <p>This study explores how treatment format (group vs. individual Coping Power) may moderate the relation between children's peer acceptance and aggression outcomes. Although there is a dearth of prior literature indicating how children's peer acceptance and the differences in intervention delivery (group versus individual) might impact the two functions of aggression to be examined (reactive aggression, proactive aggression), thus limiting the ability of this study to be based empirically supported hypotheses, the current study will propose a set of exploratory hypotheses that address two models: the acceptance model and the agreement model.</p> <p>For the acceptance model which aims to examine the relation between pretreatment peer acceptance and aggression outcomes, we propose two opposing hypotheses for the effects on reactive aggression (RA). Hypothesis 1a: Children with low pretreatment acceptance may show greater reductions in RA in the group format, benefiting from applying skills in a naturalistic setting (e.g., Lochman et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref53">25</reflink>]), while well-accepted children could have better RA outcomes in the individual format. Alternatively, the opposing Hypothesis 1b indicates that children with low acceptance may perform better in the individual format, receiving one-on-one attention to address reactivity to peer provocations (e.g., Anderson &amp; Huesmann, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>]). For proactive aggression (PA), exploratory Hypothesis 2 indicates that given its weaker association with peer acceptance, we expect that reductions in PA will be similar across formats.</p> <p>For the agreement model, which aims to examine the accuracy of perceived peer acceptance on aggression outcomes, the two opposing hypotheses are Hypothesis 3a which predicts that children with inaccurate perceptions of acceptance may benefit more from the group format due to increased exposure to peer feedback (e.g., Baumeister et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref55">3</reflink>]) and, alternatively, Hypothesis 3b, which predicts that those with inaccurate perceptions may fare better in the individual format, as they receive intensive one-on-one skill rehearsal in a controlled setting (e.g., Lochman et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref56">30</reflink>]). These exploratory analyses aim to provide novel insights into how children's actual peer acceptance and perceptual accuracy may impact the effectiveness of different Coping Power formats on functional subtypes of aggression.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-7">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186289603-8">Participants</hd> <p>For the current study, existing data were drawn from a prior randomized controlled trial on Coping Power (Lochman et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref57">29</reflink>]). Please refer to the original article regarding procedures for sample eligibility and selection. The final sample included 360 children who ranged from ages 9 to 11 (<emph>M</emph> = 9.74, SD = 0.62) and were mostly male (<emph>n</emph> = 234, 65%) and Black (<emph>n</emph> = 273, 75.8%). Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were conducted in MPLUS, utilizing full information likelihood estimation to handle missing data, which allowed for the inclusion of participants with partial data across time points.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-9">Procedure</hd> <p>Across all cohorts, children completed preintervention questionnaires during the spring semester of their fourth-grade year. The CP intervention was then implemented in both ICP and GCP conditions throughout the rest of fourth grade through the end of fifth grade. Postintervention assessment was conducted during the summer after fifth grade. Follow-up assessment occurred 1 year after CP, during the summer after their sixth-grade year.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-10">Intervention</hd> <p>For both intervention conditions, children attended 32 weekly sessions during the regular school day that were coordinated with their teachers. ICP and GCP conditions were randomly assigned to each school, and therefore, all children within the study at that school received the same condition. Additionally, each school received the same condition across all cohorts.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-11">Group Coping Power (GCP)</hd> <p>GCP groups included groups of five to six children and two consistent co-leaders, which consisted of a CP staff member and another clinician (e.g., graduate student, school counselor) and lasted for approximately 50–60 min. Although the same intervention was provided for both GCP and ICP conditions, specific activities (such as roleplays and feedback previously mentioned) were only available in the group condition. Children in the GCP condition also received monthly individual meetings. Throughout the intervention, these totaled to about nine additional sessions that took 15–30 min, which is a standard procedure in the CP curriculum. These were included to build rapport, assess understanding of the material, and address any other individual problems.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-12">Individual Coping Power (ICP)</hd> <p>Children in the ICP condition met with one CP staff member weekly for approximately 30 min. Children were able to practice skills with similar roleplay experiences, but this was conducted between the child and CP staff members rather than peers. All other aspects of the program were the same as those who received GCP. Although the length of individual sessions was shorter for ICP than GCP, the planned time difference was due to the CP staff member having to spread their interaction with multiple children in the group format, thus requiring a longer session for the group format.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-13">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186289603-14">Demographic Information</hd> <p>At the beginning of the study, demographic information, including age, gender, and ethnicity, was collected on students.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-15">Teacher Report of Proactive and Reactive Aggression (PRA; Dodge et al., 1997)</hd> <p>The PRA is a 6-item measure completed by teachers that assesses children's level of aggression. Specifically, the measure includes three items related to RA and three items for the PA scale. Items are answered on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from Never True (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>) to Almost Always True (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref59">5</reflink>). The PRA has obtained good support on reliability and validity as a teacher-reported measure of child aggression (Dodge et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref60">10</reflink>]). This measure was completed at eligibility, preintervention, postintervention, and 1-year follow-up. Raw subscale scores for RA and PA as well as the Total Aggression score were computed as primary outcome variables for the current study. Overall, reliability was good for aggression outcomes across subtypes and time points, with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.85 to 0.92.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-16">Peer Sociometric Ratings</hd> <p>All children (including non-participants) in the classrooms that included participants were asked to rate students on a scale from 1 to 6 at preintervention. Response options were as follows: my very best friends (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref61">1</reflink>), my other friends (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>), not friends but okay (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref63">3</reflink>), don't care for them (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref64">4</reflink>), dislike them (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref65">5</reflink>), and don't know them (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref66">6</reflink>). To facilitate interpretation, items were reverse-coded so that higher scores reflected higher acceptance ratings. The "don't know them" responses were excluded. A composite score was then created for each child and standardized based on classroom means to represent actual acceptance. This measure was adapted from a measure used by Lochman and Lampron ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref67">32</reflink>]) and is similar in content to measures used in recent studies (e.g., Berg et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref68">52</reflink>]). In a previous study by Lochman and Wayland ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref69">34</reflink>]), this measure validly predicted subsequent substance use and delinquent behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-17">Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC; Harter, 1985)</hd> <p>Participants were provided a 40-item self-report measure to assess their perceptions of competence in multiple areas. Six items are included in the measure to assess self-perceived peer competence and were averaged, with higher scores representing higher perceived competence. The SPPC peer competence scale has obtained good support on reliability, including internal consistency (e.g., Cole et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref70">6</reflink>]) and validity (e.g., Pardini et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref71">44</reflink>]). Cronbach's alpha for the self-perceived acceptance scale in the current study was 0.58.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-18">Accuracy/Perceptual Bias</hd> <p>To measure OE and UE, an interaction term between children's perceived acceptance (SPPC score) and their actual acceptance score (from peer sociometric ratings) was included within the polynomial regression method used by Laird and colleagues (e.g., Laird &amp; De Los Reyes, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref72">23</reflink>]) as detailed below.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-19">Data Analysis</hd> <p>This study employed polynomial regression models to examine the relations between children's actual and perceived peer acceptance and aggression outcomes. The interaction term between children's perceived acceptance and their actual acceptance score allows us to assess how the relation between actual acceptance and aggression outcomes is conditioned by perceived acceptance. Polynomial regression simultaneously tests many variations of agreement (including overestimation and underestimation), but one or more significant polynomial terms are not direct evidence of the OE or UE model (just as a significant interaction term is not direct evidence for any particular form of moderation). Inspection of predicted values through the analysis of simple slopes (when a single interaction term is tested) or 3D response surface plots (when more than one polynomial term is tested) is necessary to determine the evidence for particular hypotheses such as OE or UE (Edwards, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref73">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>All analyses were conducted in SPSS Version 27 or MPlus Version 8.7 (Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref74">41</reflink>]). First, Pearson's bivariate correlations were performed to consider the relation between variables of interest as well as with demographic variables as potential covariates.</p> <p>Two sets of models were fit to the data. The first set of models, labeled acceptance models, tested whether actual and perceived peer acceptance predicted differential response across ICP and GCP. The primary outcome variables for these models were RA and PA at follow-up, controlling for the same subtype of aggression at preintervention or postintervention. In these models, aggression at follow-up was regressed on preintervention aggression, sex, intervention format, actual acceptance, perceived acceptance, and the format × actual and format × perceived interaction terms. The two interaction terms tested whether actual or perceived peer acceptance predicted differential responses across ICP and GCP. Four acceptance models were fit, testing proactive and reactive aggression at follow-up controlling for the same function of aggression at preintervention or postintervention aggression.</p> <p>The second set of models tested whether the degree of agreement between actual and perceived peer acceptance predicted differential response across ICP and GCP. Understanding these agreement models is crucial for elucidating how the differential effects of ICP and GCP may depend on the accuracy of children's perceptions of their peer acceptance. Analyses followed recommendations (Edwards, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref75">12</reflink>]; Humberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref76">21</reflink>]; Laird &amp; De Los Reyes, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref77">23</reflink>]) for testing agreement hypotheses using polynomial regression models (i.e., regression models including higher order and interaction terms) with interpretation aided by response surface plots. The inclusion of the squared terms followed Ganzach's ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref78">16</reflink>]) recommendation to include squared terms when testing linear interactions because, otherwise, the linear interaction may be reflecting quadratic effects. Following Edwards' ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref79">12</reflink>]) recommendations, we tested whether the addition of a set of terms one order higher (i.e., actual<sups>3</sups>, perceived<sups>3</sups>, actual<sups>2</sups> × perceived, actual × perceived<sups>2</sups>) and their interactions with format improved model fit (tested using Wald test). The full equation is included in the supplementary materials.</p> <p>The statistical significance of actual × perceived interaction is the primary indicator of an agreement effect with the actual<sups>2</sups> × perceived and actual × perceived<sups>2</sups> interaction providing information if higher order terms are needed. The format × actual × perceived interaction (and if needed, the intervention × actual<sups>2</sups> × perceived and intervention × actual × perceived<sups>2</sups> interactions) tests whether the agreement effect differs across formats. We conducted fit statistics for our polynomial regression models to ensure the adequacy of our model specifications.</p> <p>Just as simple slope models present visual estimates of the interaction between two variables at select values of the moderator, 3D response surface plots present visual estimates of the fitted polynomial regression model across all values of both the <emph>X</emph> and <emph>Y</emph> variables. As such, the 3D response surface plot also incorporates any quadratic and cubic terms included in the model providing a more accurate view of the predictive model. The 3D response surface is plotted using the parameters from the regression models and illustrated across the range of the variable values observed in the dataset. These plots illustrate the nuanced relations and potential differential effects of the intervention formats on aggression outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-20">Results</hd> <p>The correlations among study variables are presented in a table in supplementary materials. Sex was associated with several predictor and outcome variables and was thus included in all regression models as a covariate to control for potential confounding effects.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-21">One-Year Follow-up Controlling for Preintervention</hd> <p>None of the format interactions were significant when predicting PA at follow-up while controlling for preintervention PA in either the acceptance model or the agreement model (Table 1). When predicting RA at follow-up controlling for preintervention RA, only the interaction between format and actual acceptance was significant in the acceptance model (Table 2; <emph>b</emph> = 0.99; <emph>p</emph> = 0.02).</p> <p>Table 1 Proactive aggression at follow-up controlling for preintervention</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Variable&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Individual&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Group&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Individual vs. Group&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;B&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;B&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;B&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="7"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Acceptance model&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Intervention&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.18&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.65&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual acceptance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.49&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.39&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.13&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.19&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.63&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Perceived acceptance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.42&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.31&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.30&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.49&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.72&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.23&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Preintervention PA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.13&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.03*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.13&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.03*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Sex&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.27&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.51&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.27&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.51&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="7"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Agreement model&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Intervention&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.09&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.87&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual acceptance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.21&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.33&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.12&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.75&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Perceived acceptance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.47&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.27&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.27&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.53&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.75&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.22&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.99&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.09&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.65&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.09&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.77&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual &amp;#215; perceived&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.17&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.69&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.66&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.13&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.49&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.43&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Perceived&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.16&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.77&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.13&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.83&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.29&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.72&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Preintervention PA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.03*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.03*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Sex&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.28&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.28&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>All models were originally fit using a format coded as 0 = individual and 1 = group, such that the terms not involving a format interaction estimate effects in ICP. To aid interpretation, the models were refit with format coded as 0 = group, 1 = individual, to obtain the terms estimating effects in GCP. Higher order terms did not improve model fit, <emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref80">8</reflink>) = 11.39, <emph>p</emph> =.18, and thus were removed <sups>*</sups><emph>p</emph> &lt;.05</p> <p>Table 2 Reactive aggression at follow-up controlling for preintervention</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Variable&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Individual&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Group&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Individual vs. Group&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;B&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;B&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;B&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="7"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Acceptance model&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Intervention&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.60&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual acceptance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.13&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.67&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.05&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.00**&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.92&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.03*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Perceived acceptance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.25&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.58&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.29&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.75&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.25&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Preintervention PA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.28&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.00**&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.28&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.00**&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Gender&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.49&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.26&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.49&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.26&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="7"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Agreement model&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Intervention&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.01&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual acceptance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.01&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.99&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.99&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.00**&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.99&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.02*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Perceived acceptance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.32&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.48&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.48&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.30&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.80&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.22&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.34&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.17&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.08&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.69&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.26&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.41&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual &amp;#215; perceived&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.16&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.73&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.67&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.15&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.51&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.43&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Perceived&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.04&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.95&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.01&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.99&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.05&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.96&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Preintervention RA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.28&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.00**&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.28&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.00**&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Sex&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.56&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.56&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>All models were originally fit using a format coded as 0 = individual and 1 = group, such that the terms not involving a format interaction estimate effects in ICP. To aid interpretation, the models were refit with format coded as 0 = group, 1 = individual, to obtain the terms estimating effects in GCP. Higher order terms did not improve model fit, <emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref81">8</reflink>) = 5.42, <emph>p</emph> =.71, and thus were removed <sups>*</sups><emph>p</emph> &lt;.05; **<emph>p</emph> &lt;.001</p> <p>When probing the relation of Actual Acceptance on RA outcomes separately for each intervention format, a significant association was found for GCP (<emph>b</emph> = 0.99, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01) but not for ICP (<emph>b</emph> = 0.01, <emph>p</emph> = 0.99). Therefore, children in GCP with higher actual acceptance had smaller reductions of RA at follow-up when controlling for preintervention RA, but this was not the case for those in ICP. None of the additional format interactions were significant when predicting RA at follow-up while controlling for preintervention RA in the agreement model.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-22">One-Year Follow-up Controlling for Postintervention</hd> <p>For PA, neither interaction in the acceptance model was significant at follow-up while controlling for postintervention PA. The higher-order terms improved the fit of the agreement models and were retained (<emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref82">8</reflink>) = 19.22, <emph>p</emph> = 0.01). In the agreement model, the interaction between quadratic Actual acceptance and linear Perceived acceptance was significantly different across intervention formats when predicting PA at follow-up while controlling for postintervention PA.</p> <p>When probing the interaction separately for each intervention format, the interaction between quadratic Actual Agreement and linear Perceived Agreement was approaching significance for children in ICP (Table 3; <emph>b</emph> = 0.77, <emph>p</emph> = 0.052), but not for GCP (Table 3; <emph>b</emph> = − 0.45, <emph>p</emph> = 0.16). Figure 1a and b contains the 3D response curve plots for ICP and GCP, respectively, illustrating that participants in ICP who underestimated their acceptance and had relatively high actual acceptance experienced smaller reductions in PA.</p> <p>Table 3 Proactive aggression at follow-up controlling for postintervention</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Variable&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Individual&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Group&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Individual vs. group&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;B&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;B&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;B&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="7"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Acceptance model&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Intervention&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.51&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.15&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual acceptance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.60&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.21&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.39&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.07&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.86&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Perceived acceptance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.41&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.29&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.24&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.56&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.65&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.25&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Preintervention PA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.43&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.001**&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.43&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.001**&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Sex&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.08&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.83&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.08&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.83&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="7"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Agreement model&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Intervention&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.58&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.29&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual acceptance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.46&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.42&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.57&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.27&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.11&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.89&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Perceived acceptance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.16&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.84&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.41&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.12&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.57&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.08&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.76&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.03&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.88&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.05&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.88&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual &amp;#215; perceived&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.18&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.67&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.53&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.71&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.23&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Perceived&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.35&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.52&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.80&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.80&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &amp;#215; perceived&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.77&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.052&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.45&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.16&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722; 1.22&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.017*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual &amp;#215; perceived&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.08&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.87&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.59&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.38&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.51&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.54&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.19&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.25&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.30&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.06&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.79&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Perceived&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722; 1.0&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.085&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.34&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.67&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.66&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.51&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Postintervention PA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.43&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.001**&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.43&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.001**&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;-&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;-&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Sex&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.04&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.92&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.04&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.92&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;-&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;-&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>All models were originally fit using a format coded as 0 = individual and 1 = group, such that the terms not involving a format interaction estimate effects in ICP. To aid interpretation, the models were refit with format coded as 0 = group, 1 = individual, to obtain the terms estimating effects in GCP <sups>a</sups><emph>p</emph> &lt;.10; *<emph>p</emph> &lt;.05; **<emph>p</emph> &lt;.001</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 3D response curve plots for ICP (a) and GCP (b)</p> <p>Finally, for RA, only the interaction between intervention format and Actual Acceptance was significant at follow-up while controlling for postintervention RA in the acceptance model. Probing the interaction separately for each intervention format revealed a significant association for those in GCP (Table 4; <emph>b</emph> = 0.86, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01) but not for ICP (<emph>b</emph> = − 0.08, <emph>p</emph> = 0.80). This suggests that higher actual acceptance resulted in smaller reductions in RA for children in GCP at follow-up when controlling for postintervention RA, but this was not the case for those in ICP. None of the additional format interactions were significant when predicting RA at follow-up while controlling for preintervention RA in the agreement model.</p> <p>Table 4 reactive aggression at follow-up controlling for postintervention</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Variable&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Individual&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Group&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Individual vs. group&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;B&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;B&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;B&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="7"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Acceptance model&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Format&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.45&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.24&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual acceptance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.09&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.76&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.85&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.001**&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.76&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.05*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Perceived acceptance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.12&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.78&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.60&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.17&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.72&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.24&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Postintervention PA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.46&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.001**&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.46&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.001**&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Sex&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.27&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.27&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="7"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Agreement model&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Format&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.07&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.07&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual acceptance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.08&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.80&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.86&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.001**&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.89&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.02*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Perceived acceptance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.07&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.88&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.69&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.12&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.66&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.28&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.09&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.12&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.51&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.36&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.24&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Actual &amp;#215; perceived&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.01&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.98&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.36&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.44&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.49&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Perceived&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.58&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.28&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.09&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.88&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.46&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.57&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Postintervention RA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.46&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.001**&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.46&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.001**&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Sex&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.35&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; &amp;#8722;.35&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>All models were originally fit using a format coded as 0 = individual and 1 = group, such that the terms not involving a format interaction estimate effects in ICP. To aid interpretation, the models were refit with format coded as 0 = group, 1 = individual, to obtain the terms estimating effects in GCP. Higher order terms did not improve model fit, <emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref83">8</reflink>) = 13.69, <emph>p</emph> =.09, and thus were removed <sups>a</sups><emph>p</emph> &lt;.10; *<emph>p</emph> &lt;.05; **<emph>p</emph> &lt;.001</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-23">Discussion</hd> <p>The overarching aim of this study was to assess whether the intervention format of CP (Lochman et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref84">37</reflink>]) moderates the relation between preintervention actual acceptance and children's perceptions of their acceptance of functional subtypes of teacher-rated aggression outcomes (RA and PA). Findings indicate that clinicians would benefit from assessing and attending to children's relative level of peer acceptance in association with their aggressive behavior prior to the start of the CP intervention.</p> <p>The results partially supported Hypothesis 1a (and did not support the alternate Hypothesis 1b) because ICP was found to be more beneficial in reducing RA than GCP for those who entered the intervention with high levels of actual peer acceptance, and these effects had lasting effects when observing change from postintervention to 1-year follow-up. This relative advantage of ICP over GCP is evident even though the GCP includes brief, periodic individual sessions as well. Thus, the findings could be even more pronounced if the intervention were only delivered in group format, without periodic individual check-ins with the children. Hypothesis 2 was also supported, as children's preintervention levels of peer acceptance did not interact with the intervention format to predict relative differences in changes in proactive aggression (PA) over time, supporting prior literature that had found children's peer acceptance to be more closely linked to their RA than their PA (Vitaro et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref85">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>The finding about intervention format interacting with peer acceptance to affect RA is consistent with previous CP research indicating that children with the G/G genotype for an oxytocin receptor gene had better behavioral outcomes in ICP than in GCP (Glenn et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref86">19</reflink>]). Because one correlate of high levels of oxytocin in the literature was higher social bonding, Glenn and colleagues (Glenn et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref87">19</reflink>]) speculated that social bonding may have been an intermediate mechanism that accounted for this genotype effect on the format of delivery of CP, as children with higher levels of social bonding (G/G genotype) may be best able to learn the social cognitive skills in the CP program when receiving CP in an individual format because they may be more distracted by a preoccupied focus on peer interaction in the group format and be less focused on intervention tasks, thus resulting in less internalization of emotion regulation skills (Glenn et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref88">19</reflink>]). Children with high acceptance in GCP may thus be less able to efficiently down-regulate intense physiological and emotional arousal when they feel challenged. Conversely, children with lower levels of actual peer acceptance showed similar reductions in RA at follow-up, regardless of whether they received CP in a group or individual format. Therefore, it may be permissible to provide GCP for these individuals to reduce their RA.</p> <p>The current study explicitly examined the effect of the presumed intermediate mechanism from the Glenn and colleagues (Glenn et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref89">19</reflink>]) study, using a high level of peer acceptance as an indicator of social bonding, and found clear support that this hypothesized mechanism did in fact interact with intervention delivery format to affect children's behavioral outcomes. Thus, the current study provides a good example of how genetic and biological research can inform prevention research by generating potential intermediate mechanisms that can then be included in subsequent applied research.</p> <p>Children in ICP also have been found to develop stronger therapeutic alliances with their therapist (Lochman et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref90">31</reflink>]) than was the case for children in GCP. In addition to the potential benefits of reduced peer preoccupation for the socially oriented and accepted children in ICP, the enhanced therapeutic alliance can lead the children to be more invested and engaged in learning emotion regulation activities presumed to be important for reducing RA.</p> <p>When assessing the agreement models, PA at follow-up while controlling for postintervention PA yielded significantly different results for the two intervention formats. Specifically, in partial support of Hypothesis 3a (rather than 3b), children in ICP who underestimated their acceptance exhibited higher levels of PA at follow-up when controlling for aggression compared to others.</p> <p>Learning CP skills through active interaction with peers may be particularly important for achieving durable, long-term effects of the intervention for those who are peer-accepted but perceive themselves otherwise. For instance, these children may feel less confident in their ability to have competent, positive social interaction with peers, even though they likely possess solid underlying interpersonal skills. This lack of confidence may lead to missed opportunities to practice such skills overtly with a peer when in ICP versus GCP. Additionally, the combination of group format as well as planned periodic individual sessions may be particularly important in helping those children who underestimate their acceptance to consolidate and personalize the gains they make in social perspective-taking with group members. The lack of direct rehearsal and roleplay with peers in ICP regarding resistance skills designed to deal with peer pressure may limit ICP children's abilities, outside of the intervention, to resist peers' coercive efforts to engage them in bullying others and planful proactive aggressive behaviors (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref91">2</reflink>]; Lochman et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref92">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref93">28</reflink>]). Finally, when peers are not part of the intervention session, there are fewer opportunities to develop empathy with peers, which may be important in reducing PA (Gini et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref94">18</reflink>]), as well as fewer opportunities to receive social rewards from peers for positive behaviors (Lochman et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref95">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>When considering function subtypes of aggression, RA and PA behaved differently. This finding further supports the notion that RA and PA, although strongly correlated, are unique constructs with differing underlying reasons for aggressive behavior, and they may be impacted differently in treatment based on factors such as prior social acceptance and intervention format. Specifically, this pattern suggests an interaction between preintervention social acceptance factors, aggression functional subtype, and intervention format that should be considered to provide the most effective intervention for individual youth. Thus, the findings can have implications for tailoring the CP intervention format for specific subsets of children.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-24">Limitations and Future Directions</hd> <p>Like all studies, this one has noteworthy limitations. First, the current study involved secondary data analysis using available timepoints and variables. Future studies may benefit from selecting additional measures specifically targeted at assessing the impact of acceptance factors on treatment outcomes. Second, the reliability of the self-perceived acceptance scale was rather low for the current study, which may be in part due to the sample's ability to self-reflect and assess their social standing, as this is one of the primary questions regarding the current sample. Additional studies should incorporate multiple measures regarding self-perceived acceptance in order to better understand results. Third, it is important to determine whether findings generalize to community-based implementations and other populations. Therefore, while these initial findings are interesting and valuable, it is crucial to continue this work with diverse samples to understand their implications. Finally, future studies should also consider the effects of changes in perceived and actual acceptance over time, both within and after the intervention, and examine potential bi-directional changes in peer acceptance and children's aggressive behavior as a function of exposure to the CP intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-25">Conclusions</hd> <p>To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine whether the effects of intervention format on outcomes for child aggression differ based on the child's actual acceptance and perceptual accuracy. Our findings suggest that it is important to consider both actual and perceived acceptance to understand their unique and interactive effects on the intervention format.</p> <p>In conclusion, understanding the influence of child factors, such as actual and perceived peer acceptance, on intervention outcomes provides valuable insights for tailoring intervention formats to meet the unique needs of each child. Translating our findings into practice may require social network analysis to assess peer acceptance dynamics, which could help identify influential peers and clarify the social structures within classrooms. Implementing both group and individual formats of the Coping Power intervention within the same school could enhance our understanding of how different formats affect children with varying levels of perceived acceptance. With proper planning and resource allocation, schools can effectively implement both intervention formats, allowing for a more individualized approach to support students.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-26">Data Availability</hd> <p>The data used in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-27">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186289603-28">Ethics Approval</hd> <p>The original study was approved by the University of Alabama Institutional Review Board (IRB), which operates within the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-29">Consent to Participate</hd> <p>Caregivers and their children provided freely given informed consent and assent, respectively, to participate prior to their inclusion in the original study.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-30">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-31">Supplementary Information</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file1 (DOCX 16 KB)</p> <hd id="AN0186289603-32">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0186289603-33"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref50" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, C. A, &amp; Huesmann, L. R. (2003). Human aggression: A social-cognitive view. In M. A. Hogg &amp; J. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 296–323). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref7" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura A. Aggression: A social learning analysis. 1973; Prentice Hall</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref23" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baumeister RF, Smart L, Boden JM. Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review. 1996; 103; 1: 5-33. 1:STN:280:DyaK283is12lsw%3D%3D. 10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.5. 8650299</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref5" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Berkowitz L. Aggression: A social psychological analysis. 1962; McGraw-Hill</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref17" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bierman, K. L. (2004). Peer rejection: Developmental processes and intervention strategies. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref66" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Cole DA, Gondoli DM, Peeke LG. Structure and validity of parent and teacher perceptions of children's competence: A multitrait–multimethod–multigroup investigation. Psychological Assessment. 1998; 10; 3: 241-249. 10.1037/1040-3590.10.3.241</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref4" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. The fast track program for children at risk: Preventing antisocial behavior. New York, NY: Guilford. Dishion, T. J, &amp; Tipsord, J. M. (2011). Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and emotional development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2020; 62: 189-214</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref47" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Dishion, T. J, &amp; Tipsord, J. M. (2011). Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and emotional development. Annual review of psychology, 62, 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100412</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref8" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dodge KAPepler DJ, Rubin KH. The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression. The development and treatment of childhood aggression. 1991; Erlbaum: 201-218</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dodge KA, Lochman JE, Harnish JD, Bates JE, Pettit GS. Reactive and proactive aggression in school children and psychiatrically impaired chronically assaultive youth. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1997; 106: 37-51. 1:STN:280:DyaK2s3lslSntA%3D%3D. 10.1037/0021-843X.106.1.37. 9103716</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dollard J, Miller NE, Doob CW, Mowrer OH, Sears RR. Frustration and aggression. 1939; Yale University Press. 10.1037/10022-000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards JR. The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1994; 58; 1: 51-100. 10.1006/obhd.1994.1029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ettekal I, Ladd GW. Costs and benefits of children's physical and relational aggression trajectories on peer rejection, acceptance, and friendships: Variations by aggression subtypes, gender, and age. Developmental Psychology. 2015; 51; 12: 1756-1770. 10.1037/dev0000057. 26414097</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ettekal I, Mohammadi M. Co-occurring trajectories of direct aggression and prosocial behaviors in childhood: Longitudinal associations with peer acceptance. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020; 11: 581192. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.581192. 33329235. 7734057</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fite, P.J, Rathert, J, Colder, C.R, Lochman, J.E, &amp; Wells, K.C. (2018). Proactive and reactive aggression: Implications for adolescent adjustment. In R.J.R. Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 2164–2170). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ganzach Y. Misleading interaction and curvilinear terms. Psychological Methods. 1997; 2; 3: 235-247. 10.1037/1082-989X.2.3.235</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gifford-Smith ME, Brownell CA. Childhood peer relationships: Social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology. 2003; 41; 4: 235-284. 10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00048-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gini, G, Thornberg, R, Bussey, K, Angelini, F, &amp; Pozzoli, T. (2022). Longitudinal links of individual and collective morality with adolescents' peer aggression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01518-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glenn AL, Lochman JE, Dishion T, Powell NP, Boxmeyer C, Qu L. Oxytocin receptor gene variant interacts with intervention delivery format in predicting intervention outcomes for youth with conduct problems. Prevention Science. 2018; 19; 1: 38-48. 10.1007/s11121-017-0777-1. 28303421. 5600646</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harter, S. (1985). Self-perception profile for children [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t05338-000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Humberg S, Nestler S, Back MD. Response surface analysis in personality and social psychology: Checklist and clarifications for the case of congruence hypotheses. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2019; 10; 3: 409-419. 10.1177/1948550618757600</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kassing, F, Godwin, J, Lochman, J.E, Coie, J.D, &amp; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Using early childhood behavior problems to predict adult convictions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2019; 47: 765-778. 10.1007/s10802-018-0478-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laird RD, De Los Reyes A. Testing informant discrepancies as predictors of early adolescent psychopathology: Why difference scores cannot tell you what you want to know and how polynomial regression may. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2013; 41; 1: 1-14. 10.1007/s10802-012-9659-y. 22773360</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee EJ, Stone SI. Co-occurring internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems: The mediating effect of negative self-concept. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2012; 41; 6: 717-731. 10.1007/s10964-011-9700-4. 21830147</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lochman, J. E, Boxmeyer, C. L, Bui, C, Hakim, E, Jones, S, Kassing, F,. &amp; Dishion, T. (2021). Substance use outcomes from two formats of a cognitive-behavioral intervention for aggressive children: Moderating roles of inhibitory control and intervention engagement. Brain sciences, 11(7), 950.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lochman JE, Boxmeyer CL, Jones S, Qu L, Ewoldsen D, Nelson WM III. Testing the feasibility of a briefer school-based preventive intervention with aggressive children: A hybrid intervention with face-to-face and internet components. Journal of School Psychology. 2017; 62: 33-50. 10.1016/j.jsp.2017.03.010. 28646974. 5492991</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lochman, J. E, Coie, J. D, Underwood, M. K, &amp; Terry, R. (1993). Effectiveness of a social relations intervention program for aggressive and nonaggressive, rejected children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 1053–1058. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.61.6.1053</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lochman JE, Dishion TJ, Boxmeyer CL, Powell NP, Qu L. Variation in response to evidence-based group preventive intervention for disruptive behavior problems: A view from 938 coping power sessions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2017; 45; 7: 1271-1284. 10.1007/s10802-016-0252-7. 28058517. 5498271</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lochman JE, Dishion TJ, Powell NP, Boxmeyer CL, Qu L, Sallee M. Evidence-based preventive intervention for preadolescent aggressive children: One-year outcomes following randomization to group versus individual delivery. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2015; 83; 4: 728-735. 10.1037/ccp0000030. 26098373. 4516613</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lochman JE, Laird RD, McDaniel HL, Boxmeyer CL, Braun SS, Powell NP, Qu L. Intervention format and therapist–child agreement associated with therapeutic alliance and outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2023; 92; 1: 26. 10.1037/ccp0000841. 37768632. 10840890</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lochman, J. E, Laird, R. D, McDaniel, H. L, Boxmeyer, C. L, Braun, S. S, Powell, N. P, &amp; Qu, L. (2024). Intervention format and therapist–child agreement associated with therapeutic alliance and outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 92(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000841</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lochman JE, Lampron LB. The usefulness of peer ratings of aggression and social acceptance in the identification of behavioral and subjective difficulties in aggressive boys. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 1985; 6; 2–3: 187-198. 10.1016/0193-3973(85)90059-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lochman, J. E, Powell, N. R, Whidby, J. M, &amp; FitzGerald, D. P. (2012). Aggression in children. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Child and adolescent therapy: Cognitive-behavioral procedures. (4th ed, pp. 27–60). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lochman, J. E, &amp; Wayland, K. K. (1994). Aggression, social acceptance, and race as predictors of negative adolescent outcomes. Journal of the American Academy of Child &amp; Adolescent Psychiatry, 33(7), 1026–1035. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199409000-00014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lochman JE, Wells KC. Contextual social-cognitive mediators and child outcome: A test of the theoretical model in the coping power program. Development and Psychopathology. 2002; 14; 4: 945-967. 10.1017/S0954579402004157. 12549711</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lochman JE, Wells KC. Effectiveness study of coping power and classroom intervention with aggressive children: Outcomes at a one-year follow-up. Behavior Therapy. 2003; 34: 493-515. 10.1016/S0005-7894(03)80032-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lochman JE, Wells KC, Lenhart LA. Coping power program. 2008; Oxford University Press. 10.1093/med:psych/9780195327878.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lochman JE, Wells KC, Qu L, Chen L. Three year follow-up of coping power intervention effects: Evidence of neighborhood moderation?. Prevention Science. 2013; 14: 364-376. 10.1007/s11121-012-0295-0. 23065350</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lynch RJ, Kistner JA, Stephens HF, David FC. Positively biased self-perceptions of peer acceptance and subtypes of aggression in children. Aggressive Behavior. 2016; 42; 1: 82-96. 10.1002/ab.21611. 26423823</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonald, K. L, &amp; Asher, S. R. (2018). Peer acceptance, peer rejection, and popularity: Social-cognitive and behavioral perspectives. In W. M. Bukowski, B. Laursen, &amp; K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (2nd ed, pp. 429–446). The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K. (2017). Mplus user's guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables, user's guide: Muthén &amp; Muthén.[Google Scholar].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nesdale D, Duffy A. Social identity, peer group rejection, and young children's reactive, displaced, and proactive aggression. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2011; 29: 834-841. 10.1111/j.2044-835X.2010.02012.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orobio de Castro B, Brendgen M, Van Boxtel H. "Accept me, or else...": Disputed overestimation of social competence predicts increases in proactive aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2007; 35; 2: 165-178. 10.1007/s10802-006-9063-6. 17216558</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pardini DA, Barry TD, Barth JM, Lochman JE, Wells KC. Self-perceived social acceptance and peer social standing in children with aggressive-disruptive behaviors. Social Development. 2006; 15; 1: 46-64. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2006.00329.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piquero AR, Carriaga ML, Diamond B, Kazemian L, Farrington DP. Stability in aggression revisited. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2012; 17; 4: 365-372. 10.1016/j.avb.2012.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Polman H, de Castro BO, Koops W, van Boxtel HW, Merk WW. A meta-analysis of the distinction between reactive and proactive aggression in children and adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2007; 35; 4: 522-535. 10.1007/s10802-007-9109-4. 17340178</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poulin F, Boivin M. The role of proactive aggression and reactive aggression in the formation and development of boys' friendships. Developmental Psychology. 2000; 36: 233-240. 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3htVKgug%3D%3D. 10.1037/0012-1649.36.2.233. 10749080</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poulin F, Dishion TJ, Burraston B. 3-Year iatrogenic effects associated with aggregating high-risk adolescents in cognitive-behavioral preventive interventions. Applied Developmental Science. 2001; 5; 4: 214-224. 10.1207/S1532480XADS0504_03</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prinstein, M. J, Rancourt, D, Adelman, C. B, Ahlich, E, Smith, J, &amp; Guerry, J. D. (2018). Peer status and psychopathology. In W. M. Bukowski, B. Laursen, &amp; K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (2nd ed, pp. 617–636). The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rivenbark JG, Odgers CL, Caspi A, Harrington H, Hogan S, Houts RM, Poulton R, Moffitt TE. The high societal costs of childhood conduct problems: Evidence from administrative records up to age 38 in a longitudinal birth cohort. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2018; 59; 6: 703-710. 10.1111/jcpp.12850. 29197100</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandstrom MJ, Herlan RD. Threatened egotism or confirmed inadequacy? How children's perceptions of social status influence aggressive behavior toward peers. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2007; 26; 2: 240-267. 10.1521/jscp.2007.26.2.240</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van den Berg YH, Lansu TA, Cillessen AH. Measuring social status and social behavior with peer and teacher nomination methods. Social Development. 2015; 24; 4: 815-832. 10.1111/sode.12120</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vitaro F, Boivin M, Poulin FBukowski WM, Laursen B, Rubin KH. The interface of aggression and peer relations in childhood and adolescence. Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups. 2018; Guilford): 284-301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White BA, Kistner JA. Biased self-perceptions, peer rejection, and aggression in children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2011; 39; 5: 645-665. 10.1007/s10802-011-9506-6. 21479668</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White BA, Jarrett MA, Ollendick TH. Self-regulation deficits explain the link between reactive aggression and internalizing and externalizing behavior problems in children. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2013; 35: 1-9. 10.1007/s10862-012-9310-9</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Meagan E. Heilman; John E. Lochman; Robert D. Laird; Kristina L. McDonald; Joan M. Barth; Nicole P. Powell; Caroline L. Boxmeyer and Bradley A. White</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref94"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1476135 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Can Peer Acceptance and Perceptual Accuracy Impact the Effectiveness of Two Formats of a Preventative Intervention on Functional Subtypes of Aggression in Youth? – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Meagan+E%2E+Heilman%22">Meagan E. Heilman</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9178-5995">0000-0002-9178-5995</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22John+E%2E+Lochman%22">John E. Lochman</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Robert+D%2E+Laird%22">Robert D. Laird</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kristina+L%2E+McDonald%22">Kristina L. McDonald</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Joan+M%2E+Barth%22">Joan M. Barth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nicole+P%2E+Powell%22">Nicole P. Powell</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Caroline+L%2E+Boxmeyer%22">Caroline L. Boxmeyer</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bradley+A%2E+White%22">Bradley A. White</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Prevention+Science%22"><i>Prevention Science</i></searchLink>. 2025 26(4):621-632. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 12 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22At+Risk+Persons%22">At Risk Persons</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Aggression%22">Aggression</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Status%22">Social Status</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preadolescents%22">Preadolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Development%22">Social Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Antisocial+Behavior%22">Antisocial Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Acceptance%22">Peer Acceptance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accuracy%22">Accuracy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Perception%22">Perception</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1007/s11121-025-01767-1 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1389-4986<br />1573-6695 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Coping Power (CP) is an empirically supported school-based intervention for children at risk for aggression. A child's social status with peers and the extent to which they accurately perceive it are important aspects of preadolescent social development that may influence how intervention format affects disruptive behavior outcomes. Further, reactive (RA) and proactive (PA) functional subtypes of aggression have differential relations with peer acceptance. This study is the first to test whether the effects of group (GCP) and individual (ICP) format of CP on RA and PA differed based on children's actual social status (aim 1) and whether they over- or underestimated their acceptance relative to their actual social status (perceptual accuracy; aim 2). This study involved secondary data analyses using a large-scale randomized controlled trial that assigned 360 children ages 9 to 11 (M = 9.74, SD = 0.62), predominantly male (n = 234, 65%), and Black (n = 273, 75.8%), with elevated levels of aggression to either ICP or GCP condition. Polynomial regression analyses and three-dimensional response surface plots tested and probed significant (p < 0.05) interactions between either actual acceptance or perceptual accuracy and intervention format on postintervention reactive and proactive aggression. Actual acceptance moderated the effects of GCP on RA, such that those with higher acceptance showed smaller reductions in RA from either preintervention or postintervention to follow-up. Perceptual accuracy also moderated the effects of ICP on PA, with those underestimating their acceptance showing smaller decreases in PA from postintervention to follow-up. These findings provide valuable insights into how children's actual peer acceptance and perceptual accuracy influence CP outcomes for different functional subtypes of aggression based on intervention format, raising important questions about potential mechanisms. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1476135 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1476135 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s11121-025-01767-1 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 12 StartPage: 621 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Intervention Type: general – SubjectFull: At Risk Persons Type: general – SubjectFull: Aggression Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Status Type: general – SubjectFull: Preadolescents Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Development Type: general – SubjectFull: Antisocial Behavior Type: general – SubjectFull: Peer Acceptance Type: general – SubjectFull: Accuracy Type: general – SubjectFull: Perception Type: general – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Can Peer Acceptance and Perceptual Accuracy Impact the Effectiveness of Two Formats of a Preventative Intervention on Functional Subtypes of Aggression in Youth? Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Meagan E. Heilman – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: John E. Lochman – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Robert D. Laird – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Kristina L. McDonald – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Joan M. Barth – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Nicole P. Powell – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Caroline L. Boxmeyer – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Bradley A. White IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1389-4986 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1573-6695 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 26 – Type: issue Value: 4 Titles: – TitleFull: Prevention Science Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
