Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:03:23.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reciprocal Skills Training in the Treatment of Externalising Behaviour Disorders in Childhood: A Preliminary Investigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2012

Paula Barrett*
Affiliation:
Griffith University, Gold Coast. [email protected]
Cynthia Turner
Affiliation:
Griffith University, Gold Coast.
Sacha Rombouts
Affiliation:
Griffith University, Gold Coast.
Amanda Duffy
Affiliation:
Griffith University, Gold Coast.
*
*Address for correspondence: Paula M. Barrett, Griffith University Psychology Clinic, Griffith University, Nathan QLD 4111, Australia.
Get access

Abstract

This study reported on the efficacy of Reciprocal Skills Training (RST), a family-based treatment modality for childhood externalising disorders. Children (N = 57) ranging from 7 to 12 years old who fulfilled diagnostic criteria for oppositional defiant disorder were randomly allocated to RST (in either a hospital or clinical setting) or a waiting-list control group. At posttreatment, no significant differences were observed across the two treatment settings. Results indicated that 95.5% of children in the hospital setting and 72.2% of children in the clinical setting no longer met criteria for oppositional defiant disorder, compared to 30% of children on the waiting list. Children in the treatment groups also obtained significantly lower scores on the Externalising scale of the Child Behaviour Checklist, compared to the waiting-list group. In addition, mothers' levels of stress and depression were significantly reduced at posttreatment, compared to mothers of children on the waiting list. These findings suggest that RST is an effective treatment modality for children displaying externalising behaviours, as well as for their mothers. The results are discussed in terms of limitations of the current study and future directions for research and clinical practice.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)