Developmental epidemiological courses leading to antisocial personality disorder and violent and criminal behavior: Effects by young adulthood of a universal preventive intervention in first- and second-grade classrooms

Abstract

Three trajectories of aggressive, disruptive behavior were identified. By young adulthood, GBG significantly reduced the rates of ASPD and violent and criminal behavior among males in the persistent high aggressive, disruptive trajectory. REPLICATION: A replication was implemented with the following cohort of first-grade children using the same teachers, but with diminished mentoring and monitoring. Beneficial impact was found among persistent high males through seventh grade. By young adulthood GBG effects on ASPD and violent and criminal behavior were non-significant, but generally in the hypothesized direction.

Methods for testing theory and evaluating impact in randomized field trials: Intent-to-treat analyses for integrating the perspectives of person, place, and time

“…For aggressive behavior, Moffitt (1993) suggested that youth followed one of three growth patterns, a normative, low aggressive class, an early starter class that had high aggressive behavior early in life and remained high, and a late starter class whose aggression increased only during the adolescent period. Patterns similar to this have been identified in the control group of males in the First BPP trial (Muthén et al, 2002;Kellam et al, 2008;Petras et al, 2008). A critical question is how the intervention affects these different patterns of growth.…”

“…Even if no interactive impact with baseline individual level risk is found, individual level risk may affect outcomes as a main effect. Even when the outcome is far removed in time from the intervention period, there can be dramatic continuities of these antecedent risks over time, as we have found in our analyses of the role of aggressive, disruptive behavior in the long-term effects of the GBG Petras et al, 2008;Poduska et al, 2008;Wilcox et al, 2008).…”

“…The intervention effect is limited to the highest, stable aggressive, disruptive class, where the GBG exposed males have lower levels of aggressive, disruptive behavior through most of elementary and middle school compared to those high aggressive, disruptive boys in the control group. Thus intervention impact is apparent among the highest risk males in this population (Muthén et al, 2002;Petras et al, 2008).…”

“…In Wilcox et al (2008), ML classes were included since hypotheses about this intervention were also tested. In Petras et al (2008) the GBG analyses were based on comparisons between the GBG classrooms and the internal GBG controls.…”

Testing links between childhood positive peer relations and externalizing outcomes through a randomized controlled intervention study.

“…Because of the active facilitation and rewarding of positive interactions between team members, it is reasonable to assume that these changes in positive peer interactions underlie the effect of the program on externalizing problems. Previous research on the GBG found that the program was indeed effective in reducing externalizing behavior (Ialongo, Poduska, Werthamer, & Kellam, 2001;Kellam et al, 2008;Kellam, Rebok, Ialongo, & Mayer, 1994;Petras et al, 2008;van Lier, Muthén, van der Sar, & Crijnen, 2004). Given these findings, we hypothesize to find reductions in externalizing behavior after 2 years of intervention among GBG children in the present trial, as compared with control-group children.…”