• Intervention must focus on social skill development in CAYP with ADHD
• Intervention must aim to benefit CAYP with ADHD 18 years or under
• Intervention can be undertaken by anybody (e.g., parents, child, teachers) as long as the beneficiary is a young person with ADHD
• Must have a “pure” control group diagnosed with ADHD that is, control group does not receive any other reported intervention within the study other than usual care
• Primary research testing an intervention
• Study must be an RCT
• Paper written in English language
• Must measure social skills of CAYP with ADHD aged 18 or under
• Studies published after 1994 (see “Search Methods” above for rationale)
• Participants reported to have obtained a clinical diagnosis of ADHD
The methodological quality of the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (CRoB) ( Higgins & Altman, 2008 ). This tool addresses fields including sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting. RCTs were stated as having either a low risk of bias if they were rated as low for three key areas: allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment and completeness of outcome data. They were stated to have an overall high risk of bias of any of these three key areas were judged as having a high risk of bias. RCTs stated to have an overall unclear risk of bias were so if any of the three key areas were stated to be unclear. Quality of evidence of the trials was also assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach using GRADE Pro software. GRADE provides a robust and transparent framework for presenting summaries of evidence, providing a systematic approach to making clinical practice recommendations. It is a widely used tool for evaluating the reliability of the evidence with over 100 organizations worldwide officially endorsing GRADE. The use of this framework ensures rigorous and replicable assessment of the quality of evidence and enable decisions to be made about the relative weight that should be given to included studies when developing recommendations for practice ( Brignardello-Petersen et al., 2018 ). AW assessed the quality of evidence and LP and JP checked the assessment.
Titles, abstracts, and/or full text papers were screened independently by two review authors (LP, JP) to identify studies compliant with the inclusion criteria. Reviewers resolved disagreements through discussion. A standardized Microsoft Excel form was used to extract data. Details of the study characteristics, including location of study, participants, the intervention, comparator and results were recorded. Data extraction was carried out by reviewer LP and checked for accuracy by reviewers AW and JP.
A random effects meta-analysis and narrative review was undertaken with tables and text providing supporting evidence. Revman5 ( The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014 ) was used to conduct the meta-analysis. A random effect size model with 95% confidence intervals was adopted and effect sizes calculated to indicate intervention efficacy to improve social skills in CAYP with ADHD. Data required for the meta-analysis was extracted by author LP and checked for accuracy by authors JP and AW.
The electronic literature search yielded a total of 20112 records following deduplication. Two additional citations were identified via handpicking methods. This involved reviewing reference sections of papers during the selection process. Therefore 20114 citations were screened by authors LP and JP and 19625 articles were excluded based upon information in the titles and abstracts. At this stage, 67 full texts were obtained, 54 were excluded (see Figure 1 ) and 13 obtained to be included in this review. Ten studies were reported across the 13 included articles.
Search results.
Overall, there were 943 CAYP with ADHD recruited across all included studies ( n = 10) with 886 participants at follow up. This means there was a mean of 94 participants at baseline and 89 at follow up with a mean of just five participants dropping out per study.
The 10 included studies included one from the UK ( Ferrin et al., 2016 ), one from Sweden ( Östberg & Rydell, 2012 ), one from Australia ( Wilkes-Gillan et al., 2016 ) and the remaining 10 were conducted in North America ( Chacko et al., 2009 ; Haack et al., 2017 ; Mikami et al., 2010 ; Pfiffner & McBurnett, 1997 ; Pfiffner et al., 2007 , 2014 , 2016 , 2018 ; Webster-Stratton et al., 2011 , 2013 ). Collectively, all included studies involved 943 participants at baseline and 886 at follow up including control groups, equating to an average of a 6.04% dropout overall. Child participants had a mean age of 8.6 (range: 5.3–10.95).
One study stipulated ADHD medication must be “stable” for at least 1 month before they took part in the study ( Ferrin et al., 2016 ), one did not report whether CAYP with ADHD were medicated ( Pfiffner et al., 2007 ), one trial stipulated that their participants must not be taking ADHD medication ( Webster-Stratton et al., 2011 , 2013 ) and the remaining trials simply reported the percentage of CAYP with ADHD who were medicated when they were recruited ( Chacko et al., 2009 ; Haack et al., 2017 ; Mikami et al., 2010 ; Östberg & Rydell, 2012 ; Pfiffner & McBurnett, 1997 ; Pfiffner et al., 2014 , 2016 , 2018 ; Wilkes-Gillan et al., 2016 ).
Eight of the 10 trials observed significant improvements following the intervention in social skills in CAYP with ADHD ( Haack et al., 2017 ; Mikami et al., 2010 ; Östberg & Rydell, 2012 ; Pfiffner & McBurnett, 1997 ; Pfiffner et al., 2007 , 2014 , 2016 , 2018 ; Webster-Stratton et al., 2011 , 2013 ; Wilkes-Gillan et al., 2016 ).
Three of the included studies did not report on comorbidities of their participants ( Chacko et al., 2009 ; Pfiffner & McBurnett, 1997 ; Pfiffner et al., 2016 , 2018 ), one excluded CAYP with ADHD that had diagnoses of any “major developmental disorder” ( Wilkes-Gillan et al., 2016 ). One study reported on comorbid oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) only ( Webster-Stratton et al., 2011 , 2013 ), and two studies reported on comorbid anxiety, depression and ODD ( Haack et al., 2017 ; Mikami et al., 2010 ; Pfiffner et al., 2014 ). The remaining three studies fully reported on comorbid conditions ( Ferrin et al., 2016 ; Östberg & Rydell, 2012 ; Pfiffner et al., 2007 ).
The results of the meta-analysis are presented graphically in Figures 2 and and3. 3 . Three parent and teacher reported outcome measures (Social skills rating system: SSRS; Social skills improvement system: SSIS; Social competence scale: SCS) were included in the analysis. This means that for the meta-analyses of parent reported and teacher reported outcome measures, five studies reported across eight papers and four studies reported across six papers were included, respectively. The Incredible years study ( Webster-Stratton et al., 2011 , 2013 ) was included in the parent but not the teacher reported outcome meta analyses as they did not adopt a suitable teacher outcome measure. The remaining five studies were not included in the meta-analysis as they also did not report on suitable outcome measures to be fairly compared with the other studies.
Meta-analysis of parent reported outcomes of social skills in CAYP with ADHD. Included in this meta-analysis were five studies reported across eight papers.
Meta-analysis of teacher reported outcomes of social skills in CAYP with ADHD. Four studies reported across six papers were included in this meta-analysis.
The left column of the figures provides the author and date of the relevant study. The means, standard deviations (SD) and weight of each study is then provided in the following columns for the intervention and control groups. The vertical line through the forest plot gives the 95% confidence interval. On the right-hand side of each figure, there is a summary of the CRoB results.
The meta -analysis found significant between group differences in favor of the intervention for improving social skills in CAYP with ADHD for both the teacher reported ( p = .004) and parent reported measures ( p = .0001). The effect size is also significant but small for both parent (.39) and teacher (.32) measures.
Only one study reported an intervention whereby CAYP with ADHD are the only recipients of the intervention ( Wilkes-Gillan et al., 2016 ). Significant between group differences were observed compared to a control group for the Test of Playfulness outcome measure.
Three interventions across three articles reported RCTs whereby parents are the only recipient of the intervention ( Chacko et al., 2009 ; Ferrin et al., 2016 ; Mikami et al., 2010 ). Two of the three studies found no significant differences between groups for social skills. ( Chacko et al., 2009 ; Ferrin et al., 2016 ). One of the three studies found that Parental Friendship Coaching predicted improved parent reported child social skills post-test ( p < .01) using the SSRS however, these results were not supported by teacher rated SSRS scores ( Mikami et al., 2010 ).
According to the parent reported Quality of Play questionnaire, Parental Friendship Coaching was associated with reductions in the amount of conflict ( p < .01) and the amount of disengagement displayed by children on playdates ( p = .52) ( Mikami et al., 2010 ). This measure involved teaching parents to structure their child’s playdates to optimize their child and friend’s social interaction and was therefore felt appropriate to include ( Mikami et al., 2010 ).
Two studies reported interventions across three articles that targeted both children and parents in separate groups ( Pfiffner & McBurnett, 1997 ; Webster-Stratton et al., 2011 , 2013 ), one study reported an intervention across two articles that included parents and children in separate groups but also included a classroom component ( Pfiffner et al., 2016 , 2018 ), one study reported an intervention involving parents groups, groups that involved the parent, child, therapist and teachers as well as a child group ( Pfiffner et al., 2007 ), one study reported an intervention across two articles involved family meetings and teacher consultations ( Haack et al., 2017 ; Pfiffner et al., 2014 ). The final study involved groups for parents and also meetings with teachers ( Östberg & Rydell, 2012 ). Of the six studies reported above, all reported improvements in social skills.
One study observed improved parent ratings of the SDQ ( p < 0.05) with problematic behaviors reducing only in the intervention group. Prosocial behavior improvements in the SDQ were not observed ( Östberg & Rydell, 2012 ).
Pfiffner and McBurnett (1997) study showed improved SSRS and UCI parent rated social skills in those who undertook Social Skills Training (SST) and Parent mediated SST compared to the control group and these effects were maintained at a 4-month follow-up ( p < .0001). However, teacher rated SSRS scores did not demonstrate a significant improvement in social skills ( p > .1). The parent mediated SST group also demonstrated improved social skills as reported by the teacher rated SSRS from pre-treatment to post-treatment ( p .001) and from pre-treatment to follow up ( p < .001). Significant differences were not found between the SST and control groups ( p > .1) ( Pfiffner & McBurnett, 1997 ).
A further study by Pfiffner et al. (2007) found significantly improved parent and teacher ratings on the SSRS between groups post-treatment, ( p = .0065). The Test of Life Skills Knowledge also found significant between group differences, favoring the intervention group, for knowledge of social and organizational skills taught during the intervention ( p = .0001) ( Pfiffner et al., 2007 ).
The CLS study ( Pfiffner et al., 2016 , 2018 ) found significant between group differences post-treatment favoring the intervention as reported in the social skills subscale of the SSIS ( p = .0393). They also found significant between group differences in favor of the CLAS intervention for both parent-reported ( p = 0.04) and teacher reported ( p = 0.02) SSIS. Differences were maintained at follow up but not then significant for teacher reported outcomes.
The Incredible Years Study ( Webster-Stratton et al., 2011 , 2013 ) found significant improvements in the Wally Problem Solving Test within the intervention arm 1-year post treatment ( p < .001).
The CRoB quality assessment summary can be found in Figures 4 and and5 5 and further details of the full CRoB quality appraisal can be found in Supplemental Appendix 3. One of the 10 included studies was judged has having an overall low risk of bias ( Wilkes-Gillan et al., 2016 ). One of the studies was judged as having an overall high risk of bias as a result of having a high risk of bias for the blinding of outcome assessment domain ( Pfiffner et al., 2016 , 2018 ). The remaining eight studies were judged as having an overall unclear risk of bias ( Chacko et al., 2009 ; Ferrin et al., 2016 ; Haack et al., 2017 ; Mikami et al., 2010 ; Östberg & Rydell, 2012 ; Pfiffner & McBurnett, 1997 ; Pfiffner et al., 2007 , 2014 ; Webster-Stratton et al., 2011 , 2013 ). It should be noted that all studies gained a high risk of bias in terms of blinding of participants. This is a challenge in studies of this type of intervention.
Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Risk of bias graph: review authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Parent and teacher outcomes were assessed using the GRADE quality assessment and found that there was on average, a low quality of evidence. This means that any conclusions and recommendations should be viewed with caution and further high-quality research is needed. Table 2 shows the results of this analysis and Table 3 summarizes the included studies in this review.
Summary of Findings and Quality Assessment Table.
Certainty assessment | No. of patients | Effect | Certainty | Importance | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No.studies | Study design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | Interventions to improve social skills | comparator | Relative (95% CI) | Absolute (95% CI) | ||
Social skills: parent | ||||||||||||
5 | Randomized trials | Serious | Not serious | Not serious | Serious | None | 230 | 193 | – | SMD 0.39 SD higher (0.19 higher to 0.59 higher) | ⨁⨁◯◯ Low | Critical |
Social skills: teachers | ||||||||||||
4 | Randomized trials | Serious | Not serious | Not serious | Serious | None | 181 | 148 | – | SMD 0.32 higher (0.1 higher to 0.54 higher) | ⨁⨁◯◯ Low | Important |
Note. CI = confidence interval; SMD = standardized mean difference.
Study Summary Table.
Author, date, country, study design and arm descriptions | Number participants ( ); number of follow up time points and timeframes | Gender, mean age (child); Participants medicated | Intervention name, length, frequency, who undertakes intervention | Control description | Outcome measures assessed; who completed measures, results and values |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
, America; 3 arm RCT | ( ) = 120 (115) | STEPP: 77% male; BPT: 66% male, control: 69% Male; STEPP: 7.36; BPT: 8.17; control: 8.02; STEPP: 40%; BPT: 35%; control: 37.5%; determined by study staff, based upon DSM criteria. 20% of STEPP children and 10% of | Strategies to enhance positive parenting (STEPP); STEPP: 2 hours a week over 9 weeks, parents and children | Traditional behavior parent training (BPT) and waitlist group. BPT: 2 hours weekly, 9 weeks | Impairment rating scale—parents; no between or within group statistically significant results observed for the IRS |
, United Kingdom; 2 arm RCT | ( ) = 69 (62). Intervention: 35 (32 6 weeks, 31 6 months); control 34 (30 6 weeks, 28 6 months); baseline 6 week and 6-month follow ups | Psychoeducation group: 29M, 6F; control: 31M, 3F; psychoeducation group: 10.86; control: 10.56 | Psychoeducation; 6 × 2-hour sessions once a week, parents; 12 parenting therapist led sessions | Treatment as usual: continued routine medical care | Strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ)—parent, teacher and child versions; no between or within group statistically significant results observed for the parent, teacher or child rated SDQ |
CLAS Study, ( ; ); America; 3 arm RCT | ( ) = 199 (187). CLAS (intervention): 74 (73 post treatment, 69 follow up); PFT: 74 (74 post treatment, 73 follow up); Control: 51 (48 post treatment, 45 follow up); baseline, post treatment and 5–7 months follow up | CLAS: 38M, 36F, PFT 48M, 26F; TAU: 30M, 21F; 8.6: CLAS: 8.8; PFT: 8.7; TAU: 8.4; CLAS: 9.5%; PFT: 1.4%; TAU: 2% | Child life and attention skills treatment (CLAS); 10 × 90-minute parent groups, 6 × 30-minute family meetings, 10 × 90-minute child group meetings, teacher consultation including 30-minute meeting, 5 × 30-minute teacher meetings, parent, child and therapist | Treatment as usual | Social skills improvement system rating scales (SSIS)—teachers and parents; significant between group differences observed in favor of the intervention (CLAS) for both parent reported ( = 0.04) and teacher reported ( = 0.02) SSIS |
, America; Pilot 2 arm RCT | ( ) = 124 (119). PFC 32 (29 post-test, 28 follow up), ADHD control 30 (30 post-test, 29 follow up), normative comparison 62 (62); baseline, post-test, 1-month follow up | PFC: 21M, 11F; ADHD control: 21M, 9F, normative comparison: 42M, 20F; PFC: 8.28, ADHD control: 8.23; normative comparison: 8.23; PFC and ADHD control: 24.8% | Parental friendship coaching (PFC); 8 × 90-minute sessions, once weekly | No treatment control group, also included a normative comparison group | SSRS—parents and teachers; quality of play questionnaire (QPQ)—parents SSRS: PFC predicted higher parent reports of child’s social skills post-test ( = 0.04). No significant results reported for teacher rated SSRS. QPQ: receipt of PFC associated with reductions in amount of conflict ( < 0.01) and amount of disengagement ( < 0.01) children displayed on playdates; reported by parents |
Östberg et al. (2012), Sweden; 2 arm RCT | Parents: ( ) = 70(65): intervention: 36 (30 post-test, 29 follow up); control 34 (24 post-test, 32 follow up). Teachers: ( ) = 77 (70): intervention: 38 (38 post-test, 35 follow up); control: 39 (38 post-test, 35 follow up); baseline, post-test, 3-month follow up | Intervention: 25M, 4F; control: 26M, 6F; intervention: 11.1; control: 10.8; intervention: 86%; control: 77% | Strategies in everyday life; parents 10 weekly 2 hours sessions, teachers: 8 sessions | Pure control group, participants in this group received intervention at the end of the study | SDQ—parent and teachers; there was one significant effect on parent ratings of the SDQ-total ( < 0.05) with problematic behaviors reducing only in the intervention group. No significant differences were reported with regards to the prosocial behavior items of the SDQ |
, America; 3 arm RCT | ( ) = 27(27): SST-PG: 9 (9 post-test and follow up); SST: 9 (9 post-test and follow up); waitlist: 9 (9 post-test and follow up), baseline, posttreatment, 4-month follow up | 19M, 8F: SST-PG: 6M, 3F; SST: 6M, 3F; waitlist: 7M, 2F; aged 8–10 years | Child SST and SST-PG; 8 weekly 90-minutes sessions | Wait list control group, received SST-PG after the follow up measures were taken | SSRS—parents and teachers; UCI—parents; test of social skill knowledge—child; both groups combined significantly improved parent reports of social skills compared to control group. Effects maintained at 4-month follow up (SSRS: < 0.0001). Improvements compared to control group observed in pooled treatment groups for UCI ( < 0.0001). Teacher rated SSRS not significant ( > 0.1) SST-PG treatment group showed significant teacher rated SSRS scores from pre-treatment to posttreatment ( 0.015) and from pre-treatment to follow up ( < 0.01). Scores for SST and control groups did not significantly change from pre-treatment to post-treatment ( > 0.1) |
, America; 2 arm RCT | ( ) = 69 (54). Intervention: 36 (36 post-test, 29 follow up); control 33 (30 post-test, 25 follow up); baseline, post-test and variable timescales for follow ups | 46M, 23F; CLAS: 8.8; PFT: 8.7; control: 8.4 | CLAS: 12 weeks. Teachers: initial 30 minutes followed by 4–5 30 minutes meetings with teachers, parent child, therapist | Control group (“business as usual”) did not receive the intervention, offered intervention at end of study | SSRS—parents and teachers; test of life skill knowledge—child; SSRS: parent and teacher ratings of social functioning showed significant between group differences at post-treatment favoring the treatment group ( = 0.0065). Test of life skills knowledge: children’s knowledge of social and organizational skills taught during the group showed significant between group differences favoring the intervention group ( = 0.0001) |
Collaborative life skills training (CLS) study ( , ) America; 2 arm cluster RCT intervention: collaborative life skills (CLS) and control (“Business as usual; BAU”). | ( ) = 135 (134). Intervention: 72 (72 post-test and follow up); control: 63 (62 post-test and follow up); baseline, posttreatment, follow up next school year | CLS: 54M, 18F; control 42M, 21F; CLS: 8.3; control: 8.5; CLS: 9.7%; control: 7.9% | CLS classroom: teachers attended 1 × 1-hour session, 1 × 30-minute meeting and 2–3 individual 30 minutes meetings with teacher, parent and child | Usual services (in schools), intervention not received | Social skills improvement system—parents and teachers; parent ratings of SSIS showed significant between group differences posttreatment favoring the CLS group ( = 0.0034). Teachers ratings of the SSIS were not statistically significant |
Incredible years (IY) study (Webster Stratton et al., 2011, 2013) America; 2 arm RCT | ( ) = 99 (94). IY: 49 (47 post-test, 42 follow up); Control:50 (47 post-test; follow up not applicable for controls). Baseline; post-test, 1 year follow up | IY: 36M, 13F; control: 39M, 11F; IY: 5.3; control: 5.3; no medication at randomization | Incredible years (IY; parents) and IY dinosaur program (children); 20 weekly 2 hours group sessions for both IY and IY dinosaur programs | Waitlist control condition | Social competence scale—parents; wally problem solving test (WPST)—children; significant between group differences were reported for the SCS ( < 0.001) and the WPST ( < 0.01) pre and post intervention. Significant improvements in the wally problem solving test were observed within the intervention arm 1-year post-treatment ( < 0.001) and no significant differences were observed within the treatment group for the social competence scale |
Wilkes-Gillen et al. (2016), Australia; 2 group parallel RCT | ( ) = 31 (29). Intervention: 16 (15 post-test, 15 at post-test and follow up); control 15 (14 at post-test and follow up); baseline, post-test, 1-month follow up | Intervention: 13M, 2F; control: 12M; 2F; intervention: 8.2; control: 8.5; intervention: 9 medicated; control: 11 medicated | Play based intervention; 6 clinic play sessions for child and weekly home modules delivered by parent | Waitlist condition, received intervention after 10 weeks of wait time | Test of playfulness—children (observation); significant between group differences were observed in favor of the intervention group for the test of playfulness ( < 0.001) |
Two meta-analyses were conducted. Of the 10 included studies, eight were included in the meta-analysis.
This review set out to answer the question “Do psychoeducation interventions improve social skills in CAYP with ADHD?” Following exclusions, 10 studies reported across 13 articles were included. Overall, there were 943 CAYP with ADHD recruited across all 10 included studies with 886 participants at follow up. This means there was a mean of 94 participants at baseline and 89 at follow up with a mean average of five participants dropping out per study.
Encouragingly, our meta-analysis indicated small but significant improvements in social skills in CAYP with ADHD in favor of the intervention for both parent and teacher reported outcome measures. Seven of the included 10 studies involved CAYP with ADHD as recipients of the intervention ( Chacko et al., 2009 ; Haack et al., 2017 ; Pfiffner & McBurnett, 1997 ; Pfiffner et al., 2007 , 2014 , 2016, 2018; Webster-Stratton et al., 2011 , 2013 ; Wilkes-Gillan et al., 2016 ). Six of these eight studies reported significant improvements in social skills in CAYP with ADHD ( Chacko et al., 2009 ; Haack et al., 2017 ; Pfiffner & McBurnett, 1997 ; Pfiffner et al., 2007 , 2014 , 2016, 2018; Webster-Stratton et al., 2011 , 2013 ; Wilkes-Gillan et al., 2016 ). These six studies all engaged CAYP interactively in the intervention through activities such as group work, role-play, problem solving, coaching, behavioral rehearsal and feedback. This could indicate that CAYP with ADHD are more likely to have a preference toward an interactive learning style.
One of the eight studies that included children as intervention recipients did not report significant improvements in social skills in CAYP with ADHD ( Chacko et al., 2009 ). This study concentrated on behavioral impairment rather than ADHD symptoms. This is important because although their participants included CAYP with ADHD, it was not the difficulties with social skills that resulted directly from the ADHD that were being measured.
Recent systematic review evidence ( Dahl et al., 2020 ) has concluded that psychoeducation interventions for parents and teachers can lead to improvements in behavior in CAYP with ADHD and that there is little evidence in favor of behavioral interventions improving peer social functioning in CAYP with ADHD ( Morris et al., 2020 ). This review adds to the existing evidence base by only including studies evaluating interventions that involve a psychoeducational component and specifically assessing the impact these interventions have upon social skills in CAYP with ADHD.
Our meta-analysis shows that parent reported measures were likely to demonstrate a significant improvement in social skills in CAYP with ADHD. It should be acknowledged, however, that parents were not blinded to the intervention their children were receiving. This could indicate that parents, who would have invested their time and effort into the interventions, expected or hoped to observe improvements in their child’s social skills and could therefore reflect observer bias. It should, however, be noted that due to the nature of the interventions, it is often impossible to blind participants and their families to the arm of the study allocated to the participant. The meta-analysis also demonstrated that the teacher reported measures were significant in improving social skills for CAYP with ADHD, adding weight to the parent reported measure findings.
It is clear that social skills difficulties are a significant problem for CAYP with ADHD and their families. However, previous research as to the value of psychoeducation in establishing long term improvements in social functioning in CAYP with ADHD remains difficult for clinicians to interpret. The studies reported in this review involved significant time commitment from parents, teachers and clinicians.
Although 10 studies are included in this review, they include a large number of, often non-comparable, outcome measures ( n = 15). This is why five of the 10 included studies were not included in the meta-analysis. It is important to note that the interventions included in this review do not focus solely on psychoeducation therefore results should be interpreted with caution as it is difficult to definitively state that the effectiveness of the interventions in the meta-analysis are due to the psychoeducation mechanisms provided.
Further, it would be beneficial if consistent outcome measures could be adopted across multiple trials to enable fair comparison across studies. In order to reduce bias, it may be useful to additionally adopt social skills assessments that do not involve subjective measures in order to decrease the potential for bias by the evaluators. This could involve the utilization of emerging objective measures such as the use of technology ( Hult et al., 2018 ; Muñoz-Organero et al., 2019 ).
This review does however highlight the potential for interventions for CAYP with ADHD to include a psychoeducational component that educates the child about ADHD and/or teaches them a new skill to help them cope with their ADHD related difficulties such as social skills training. This approach has been successful in other conditions such as depression in adolescents ( Jones et al., 2018 ), asthma in CAYP ( Marsland et al., 2019 ) and epilepsy in adolescents ( Snead et al., 2004 ), as well as in young people with ADHD ( Dahl et al., 2020 ). The clinical significance of these findings favoring psychoducation for CAYP with ADHD are particularly important as evidence suggests that those treated with psychoeducation as well as another treatment such as medication, tend to have better treatment acceptance, adherence and better long-term outcomes ( Adler & Nierenberg, 2010 ; Bai et al., 2015 ). Further, interventions that educate the parent were included in this review. Evidence suggests that parent knowledge of ADHD can lead to improved treatment outcomes for their child due to the parents’ improved confidence in enrolling their child in behavioral and psychological treatments ( MacKay & Corkum, 2006 ).
Further research is required to explore which components should comprise such interventions for CAYP with ADHD in order to make them successful.
It must however be noted that research to evaluate interventions to improve social skills in CAYP with ADHD is complex. ADHD is a highly variable, comorbid condition and the individuals involved often live in complex circumstances. No single intervention will work for every child.
A recent systematic review of 25 studies reported across 45 papers concluded that “there is little evidence to support or refute social skills training for children and adolescents with ADHD” ( Storebø et al., 2019 ). It must be noted that the Storebø review focused on social skills training and not psychoeducational mechanisms, as in the case of this present review. However other research suggests that there is in fact limited benefits of social skills training ( Mikami et al., 2014 ). Mikami et al. (2014) argued that traditional clinic-based social skills training may be ineffective because it focuses on teaching social skills knowledge without addressing the performance barriers that prevent the young people from using the knowledge gained in practical ways. It was hypothesized that social skills training is ineffective because it fails to consider factors that contribute to impaired relationships between children with ADHD and their peers such as different peer attitudes, exclusionary behaviors and negative attitudes toward young people with ADHD. However, not all social skills interventions both generally and in this review are traditional clinic-based interventions. This is important as applying knowledge in practice in varying contexts is key.
In the future, design of social skills interventions should consider both the variable personal and environmental context in which the intervention delivered ( World Health Organisation (WHO), 2018 ). That is, studies investigating these interventions should aim to answer the question “what works for whom under what circumstances and respects?” ( Pawson et al., 1997 ). This would enable resources to be targeted optimally. This can be achieved via methodologies such as Realist Evaluation (RE) that aims to explore the mechanisms underpinning an intervention ( Bonell et al., 2012 ). Having an in depth understanding of the theoretical mechanisms underpinning the intervention and what components work, for whom and in what circumstances could improve the outcome of the intervention ( Rycroft-Malone et al., 2010 ).
Social skills training interventions for CAYP with ADHD are often based upon the assumption that CAYP with ADHD do not understand social skills and need to be taught what they are. This often happens in a clinic setting that is not representative of real life scenarios, hence the argument that social skills training will not work in such an artificial situation ( Mikami et al., 2014 ). However, it has been reported that there may not be a deficit in CAYP with ADHD acquiring social skills knowledge, but a deficit may exist whereby the young person is unable to perform social skills ( Aduen et al., 2018 ). That is, understanding social sills may not be problematic, but putting them into practice may be. To this end, future psychoeducational social skills interventions for CAYP with ADHD may therefore wish to educate CAYP with ADHD around how to put their social skills into practice in real life situations to help enhance social skills performance, rather than only teaching them what social skills are.
It is also important to consider that there is no way of knowing the extent to which comorbid conditions have confounded the extent to which CAYP with ADHD may respond to the interventions in this review. This is especially challenging as three of the 10 included RCTs did not report on comorbid conditions and one RCT excluded participants who had a diagnosis of any other “major developmental disorder” ( Wilkes-Gillan et al., 2016 ). This is important because it has also been reported that different presentations of ADHD and different comorbidities such as Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) may present different social problem profiles ( De Boo & Prins, 2007 ). Therefore, it is proposed that not only should future social skills psychoeducation for CAYP with ADHD to focus upon putting social skills into practice, but it should also be tailored to the individual and their needs. Future research should also report on all of the comorbidities of their participants.
Of the 10 included studies, only one was conducted in the UK; one in Sweden, one in Australia and seven studies in North America. Therefore, the conclusions of this review must be generalized to an international population with caution. The included studies are also limited to those provided in the English language, which can cause information bias.
The evidence is limited to the broad definition of psychoeducation adopted ( Montoya et al., 2011 ). This was due to the heterogeneous definitions of psychoeducation in the literature. Future research may wish to address this and work toward a standardized definition of psychoeducation to guide clinicians. As with all RCTs of behavioral interventions, blinding can be problematic as can the inclusion of a pure control group due to naturally occurring confounds that cannot be controlled.
This review is also limited to the evidence in the literature, which as previously discussed, runs the risk of not being representative of a wider population of families who live with CAYP with ADHD and have difficulty accessing such support. Much of the evidence does not consider maintenance of efficacy and ongoing support needs. Future research is advised to consider this ( DuPaul et al., 2020 ) and to explore innovative ways by which ongoing support could be provided to CAYP with ADHD and their families.
Future research should report significant factors that could impact upon the effectiveness of their intervention. This includes gender, the presentation and severity of participants’ ADHD, whether or not a parent has previously attended a parent group, socio-demographic factors, comorbid conditions including ASD and if the child is taking ADHD medication at any point in the study. Where possible, this information should at least be collected at baseline and at the end of the study to highlight any changes during the duration of the study. If a young person is optimized on medication, does this improve outcomes of psychoeducation and indeed other behavioral therapies?
Psychoeducational interventions for CAYP have the potential to empower the individual and to maximize self-care ( Barlow & Ellard, 2004 ) and offer the possibility of the need for less medication. They may also lay the foundations for improved outcomes in adult life. However, in order to increase the likelihood that the intervention will lead to impact (i.e., achieve the desired outcome), it is important that they are designed properly from the outset ( DuPaul et al., 2020 ). Co-design methodologies involving the end users and stakeholders at every stage of intervention development are recommended to achieve this ( Blower et al., 2020 ; Greenhalgh et al., 2016 ).
Co-design can be a challenging approach, especially when working with a population with attention difficulties such as ADHD. However, evidence suggests that it is indeed possible ( Fekete & Lucero, 2019 ; Powell et al., 2017 ). However, careful consideration for the mechanisms and components of design are essential to understand what component of subsequent treatment is leading to better social outcomes. Fekete and Lucero (2019) report a number of recommendations on how to effectively co-design with this population.
ADHD is a complex, comorbid condition. Individuals with ADHD can benefit from a package of care which includes a number of interventions targeting different facets of their difficulties ( National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), 2018 ).
The findings of this review indicate that behavioral interventions including a psychoeducation element could be valuable for improving social skills in CAYP with ADHD. The effect sizes in the present review are small but significant. Specifically, involving CAYP with ADHD interactively in the intervention shows promise and may be a reflection of CAYP with ADHD requiring support with the performance rather than the acquisition of social skills. However, the quality of the included studies is uniformly, limited so the conclusion should be generalized with caution. Blinding of the participant and their families is often impossible when delivering behavioral interventions within an RCT design. It would be beneficial if consistent outcome measures and optimal study design to reduce bias could be agreed.
We recommend that future interventions to improve social skills in CAYP with ADHD should involve a psychoeducational component, clear and transparent reporting, be co-designed, and consider the personal and environmental contexts in which the intervention is to be delivered. Only then can clinicians understand which interventions will best support the complex children, young people and families they strive to support.
Acknowledgments.
Authors would like to thank the authors of the included papers who assisted us with gathering manuscripts and for providing helpful information for this review.
Lauren Amy Powell’s research interests focus on the use of innovative co-design methodologies in the design of complex interventions of children and young people with neurodisabilities with a focus upon cross disciplinary research. Her previous related work has focused on the level of evidence and suitability of available technologies for children and young people with ADHD to self-manage their condition. This has involved both mixed methods and systematic reviewing. She has also conducted a realist evaluation to co-develop guidelines to inform the future development of a complex intervention for CAYP with ADHD.
Jack Parker is following a 13-year career as a Royal Marines Commando where he specialised in physical training and rehabilitation, he undertook and gained a first class BSc (Hons) in Physiotherapy at Sheffield Hallam University, where he also undertook his PhD ‘Stroke patients’ utilisation of extrinsic feedback from computer-based technology in the home: a multiple case study realistic evaluation.’ He has published in a number of peer reviewed journals, book chapters, and NIHR publications. He has presented at and chaired national and international conferences as well as to academic and NHS trusts. He has also had the opportunity to lecture undergraduate and postgraduate Physiotherapists, Sport Therapists, university and NHS staff and medical students.
Anna Weighall is a cognitive developmental psychologist researching the relationships between sleep, memory and learning, spoken language development and vocabulary acquisition in children and adults. Dr Weighall is also interested in developing evidence based behavioural interventions to improve sleep for children and their families; and the role of sleep in typical and atypical cognitive development, including ADHD and paediatric narcolepsy.
Valerie Harpin is a consultant neurodevelopmental paediatrician. Her special interests include the care of children and young people with special needs and neurodisabilities, particularly Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD and learning disability. Dr Harpin's main research interests are in ADHD and Transition to Adult services.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material: Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
Download Free PDF
Social Problem Solving for Child Scale is frequently used to determine behavioral problems of children with their own word and to identify ways of conflict encountered in daily life, and interpersonel relationships in abroad. The primary purpose of this study was to adapt the Wally Child Social Problem–Solving Detective Game Test. In order to determine validity of 6 years old children (208 -52 % female and 192 male -48 %) scale, data exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) identified two factor accounting for 46.534 % of the variance. The confirmatory factor analyses results indicated that the factor structure was partially consistent with the model. Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficients were .88 for general scale, were .86 and .73 for subscales. Spearman- Brown coefficients were .80 for general scale, were .81 and .75 for subscales. The secondary purpose of this study was to determine whether social problem solving of children predicted preschool behavior problem, and gender and socio-cultural level variables predicted social problem solving. The results showed that whereas subscales of social problem solving of the students significantly predicted subscales of preschool behavior problem, gender and soco-cultural level did not significantly predicted social problem solving of children.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1988
Parents (n = 1001) and teachers (n = 284) of 518 girls and 483 boys (aged 3-5 years old), answered the Social Skills Rating System–Parent and Teacher forms (Gresham & Eliot, 1990), which aimed to measure their children's social skills, internalizing problems, and externalizing problems based on gender differences. The results of a MANOVA showed that, according to parents and teachers, girls scored higher than boys on the social skills (cooperation, responsibility, and self-control) and internalizing problems (sadness, depression and loneliness) subscales. Boys scored higher than girls on the externalizing problems (aggression, poor control of temper, arguing) subscale. Parents' ratings did not show a significant difference between girls and boys' measurements of assertiveness. Keywords: social skills, internalizing problems, externalizing problems, gender, preschoolers.
Psycho-Educational Research Reviews, 2021
This study was aimed to develop a scale to determine the problem behaviors of 3-6 aged preschool children. A systematic process was carried out during the development of the scale. A total of 305 preschool teachers filled in the scale development study. Based on the results of exploratory factor analysis (EFA), it was identified that the scale consists of 30 items and three factors, explaining 52.13% of the total variance. These factorsare named academic skills problems, peer relationship problems, and developmental-behavioral problems in accordance with the literature. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine whether the collected data confirmed the determining factor structure. The whole scale’s Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was found as .94. Cronbach alpha coefficients were .91 for “academic skills problems”, .89 for “peer relationships problems”, and .83 for “developmental behavior problems”. As a result of the analysis, the scale is valid and reliable t...
Psychological Research and Intervention, 2021
Social problem-solving strategy accepted by society is the essential accomplishments in the development of pre-school children. However, until recent studies, social problem-solving strategies among pre-school children in Indonesia is still rarely conducted. This research examines the role of age, gender in children, and friends’ gender towards social problem-solving strategies. This research utilised a purposive sampling that voluntarily involved 162 children 4-6 years old. Those children were selected from an intact family consisting of a father, mother and children who lived together. A hypothetical social situation dilemma was utilised to gather social problem-solving strategies data from the subjects. The data were analysed with the use of cross-tabulation and chi-square test. Concerning the data analysis, the results reveal no significant difference in social problem-solving strategies when viewed in terms of age and gender of the children and friends’ gender. This sugg...
kr-acceptanceandthe acquisition ofsocialproblem solvingarethe importantaccomplishments of preschool children. Howeve4 studies on peer acceptance and social problem among pre-school children in Indonesia have not been widely conducted by scholars to this, this research attempts to examine and explain the differences among the three problem-solving strategies: prosocial, passive, and coercive which are commonlyfound in , To obtain the objective, this research utilised a purposive sampling which voluntarily 162 children aged 4-5 years old as primary respondents. Those children were selected from consisting of father, mother and children who lived together. Subjects numbered of L62 rhis study also voluntarily invited 212 children aged 45 years old serving as peer-assessors. of sociometry and hypothetical social stuation dilemmas were utilized to gather data from nts. The data were then analyzed with the use of one way variance. With regard to the the results reveal that there is no sign...
The Journal of genetic …, 2002
This study was conducted to perform the validity and reliability analyses of the Social Behavior Scale for Preschool Children (SBS). The data were obtained as a result of the evaluation of the social behaviors of 315 children aged between 4 and 6, who were attending 6 independent kindergartens affiliated to the Ministry of National Education in Kirikkale, by 20 teachers. In testing the validity of the scale, the expert opinion was obtained for content validity, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was performed, and the significance of the difference between the test scores of the groups, the face validity and characteristics of which were known, was checked for construct validity. For testing the reliability of the scale, the internal consistency coefficient and the test-retest reliability coefficient were calculated for each age group and each dimension of the scale. It was concluded that the sample included in the study was adequate for the structural equation method. In ...
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1987
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1997
The cross-cultural validity of the Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 2-3 (CBCL/2-3) was tested in three Dutch samples of children referred to mental health services, from the general population, and from a twin study. Six scales were derived from factor analyses and labeled Oppositional, Aggressive, and Overactive, which constituted a broadband Externalizing grouping; Withdrawn/Depressed and Anxious, which constituted a broadband Internalizing grouping; and Sleep Problems. Internal consistencies of the scales, their test-retest reliabilities, interparent agreement, discriminative power, predictive relations with problem ratings 2 years later, and relations to other instruments designed to measure general development and behavior problems were adequate, and highly comparable to psychometric properties in American samples. It was concluded that across languages and cultures behavioral/emotional problems of young preschoolers may be adequately assessed with the CBCL/2-3.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2013
Eğitim ve Bilim, 2015
Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 2010
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2009
Jagiellonian University Institute of Public Affairs, 2018
Journal of Educational and Social Research, 2013
European Journal of Educational Sciences, 2021
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2012
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 2008
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1983
Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 2007
Infant Mental Health Journal, 2007
Journal of abnormal child psychology, 2015
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 2011
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The Wally Problem Solving Test is a child-centered individual test that measures social problem solving skills in children. It is based on the Preschool Problem Solving Test and the Child Social Problem Solving Test and was developed by Webster-Stratton and her study group.
The document provides directions for administering the Wally Problem Solving Test to assess a child's ability to solve problems. The test presents 13 problem situations covering themes like rejection, mistakes, unfair treatment, and more.
The WALLY Problem Solving test (Webster-Stratton, 1990) measures children’s problem-solving skills or solutions in response to hypothetical problem situations. Summary scores include the number of different positive and negative strategies that children generate in order to solve the problem.
Wally Child Social Problem–Solving Detective Game Test from English to Turkish. The Turkish form of the Wally Child Social Problem–Solving Detective Game Test and the Sears Aggression Scale were administered to 376 Turkish primary school students (median age M=8.10) in first and second grades.
Social competence scale—parents; wally problem solving test (WPST)—children; significant between group differences were reported for the SCS (p < 0.001) and the WPST (p < 0.01) pre and post intervention.
Social Problem Solving for Child Scale is frequently used to determine behavioral problems of children with their own word and to identify ways of conflict encountered in daily life, and inter-personel relationships in abroad. The primary purpose of this study was to adapt the Wally Child Social Problem–Solving Detective Game Test.
... data in Table 3 shows the results of pre-test mean scores that children achieved on Wally Social Problem Solving Test, which is used to measure children's social problem solving...
The primary purpose of this study was to adapt the Wally Child Social Problem–Solving Detective Game Test. In order to determine validity of 6 years old children (208 -52 % female and 192 male -48 %) scale, data exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted.
Conclusions and Recommendations: The results of this study revealed that the 14-item Wally Child Social Problem-Solving Detective Game Test can be used to evaluate conduct problems and social problem-solving skills among Turkish primary school students between the ages of 7 and 8.
minimize the long-term consequences of problem behaviors from violence and criminality, substance use and abuse, teen pregnancy and hazardous sexual behaviors, and school failure. Academics and professionals in public health social work, psychology, and school counseling will find special interest in this important work.