Table 1
Detailed overview of participants.
| PARTICIPANT | AGE | GENDER | TREATMENT CENTER | DSM SCALES (ASEBA-YSR) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 15 | Girl | MFC for youth with behavioral and emotional problems (A) | Affective problems (subclinical), Anxiety problems (clinical), ADHD (clinical), Conduct problems (subclinical) |
| 2 | 13 | Boy | MFC for youth with behavioral and emotional problems (A) | Affective problems (clinical), Anxiety problems (clinical), Somatic problems (subclinical) |
| 3 | 11 | Boy | MFC for youth with behavioral and emotional problems (A) | Affective problems (clinical), Anxiety problems (clinical), Conduct problems (subclinical) |
| 4 | 12 | Boy | MFC for youth with behavioral and emotional problems (B) | No (sub)clinical scores Highest score on ADHD |
| 5 | 13 | Girl | MFC for youth with behavioral and emotional problems (B) | Affective problems (subclinical), ODD (clinical), Conduct problems (subclinical) |
| 6 | 11 | Girl | MFC for youth with behavioral and emotional problems (B) | Affective problems (subclinical), Anxiety problems (clinical), Somatic problems (clinical), ADHD (subclinical) |
[i] Note. Two different multi-functional centers (MFC) with similar programs are designated as (A) and (B); Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA); Youth Self-Report (YSR), T-scores on DSM-oriented are categorized as <65 = normal, 65–69 = subclinical, ≥70 = clinical; see also Measurements).
Table 2
Feasibility overall training.
| QUESTIONS |
|---|
|
[i] Note. Based on the “Barriers-to-Treatment-Participation Scale”
Figure 1
Study design.
Figure 2
EuREKA-training/EuREKA-circle.
Table 3
Feasibility evaluated by adolescents.
| PARTICIPANT 1 | PARTICIPANT 2 | PARTICIPANT 3 | PARTICIPANT 4 | PARTICIPANT 5 | PARTICIPANT 6 | OVERALL SCORES | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | MIN-MAX | SD | M | MIN-MAX | SD | M | MIN-MAX | SD | M | MIN-MAX | SD | M | MIN-MAX | SD | M | MIN-MAX | SD | M | SD | |
| 1. I am satisfied with the session | 4.17 | 4–5 | .39 | 4.50 | 3–5 | .67 | 3.64 | 3–5 | .92 | 3.82 | 1–5 | 1.40 | 3.18 | 3–5 | .60 | 3.27 | 1–5 | 1.10 | 3.9 | .50 |
| 2. I felt like the trainer understood me | 4.41 | 4–5 | .51 | 4.67 | 4–5 | .49 | 3.46 | 3–5 | .82 | 4.18 | 2–5 | 1.08 | 3.81 | 3–5 | .60 | 3.18 | 1–5 | 1.32 | 4.11 | .48 |
| 3. The trainer listened to me | 4.58 | 4–5 | .51 | 3.58 | 4–5 | .51 | 3.63 | 3–5 | .81 | 4.09 | 1–5 | 1.22 | 3.81 | 3–5 | .60 | 3.18 | 1–5 | 1.33 | 3.99 | .55 |
| 4. I understood the information that was given | 4.41 | 4–5 | .51 | 4.17 | 2–5 | .94 | 3.18 | 3–5 | .60 | 4 | 1–5 | 1.41 | 3.82 | 3–5 | .75 | 3.36 | 2–5 | .92 | 3.82 | .47 |
| 5. The worksheets were helpful to work with | 4.01 | 4–5 | .29 | 3.75 | 3–5 | .75 | 3.36 | 3–5 | .81 | 4 | 1–5 | 1.41 | 3.36 | 2–5 | .81 | 3.45 | 3–5 | .82 | 3.67 | .32 |
| 6. What we did and what we talked about was important to me | 4.17 | 4–5 | .39 | 4.10 | 2–5 | 1.00 | 3.45 | 2–5 | .1.04 | 3.63 | 1–5 | 1.36 | 3.81 | 3–5 | .63 | 3.45 | 3–5 | .82 | 3.84 | .37 |
[i] Note. Strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neutral (3), agree (4), strongly agree (5).
Figure 3a
Weekly scores on the ERSQ-J during the baseline phase (A) and treatment phase (B) for PP01.
Note. PP = participant.
Figure 3b
Weekly scores on the ERSQ-J during the baseline phase (A) and treatment phase (B) for PP02.
Note. PP = participant.
Figure 3c
Weekly scores on the ERSQ-J during the baseline phase (A) and treatment phase (B) for PP03.
Note. PP = participant.
Figure 3d
Weekly scores on the ERSQ-J during the baseline phase (A) and treatment phase (B) for PP04.
Note. PP = participant.
Figure 3e
Weekly scores on the ERSQ-J during the baseline phase (A) and treatment phase (B) for PP05.
Note. PP = participant.
Figure 3f
Weekly scores on the ERSQ-J during the baseline phase (A) and treatment phase (B) for PP06.
Note. PP = participant.
Table 4
Primary outcomes at pretraining and post training for each participants.1
| PARTICIPANT 1 | PARTICIPANT 2 | PARTICIPANT 3 | PARTICIPANT 4 | PARTICIPANT 5 | PARTICIPANT 6 | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRE | POST | RCI | PRE | POST | RCI | PRE | POST | RCI | PRE | POST | RCI | PRE | POST | RCI | PRE | POST | RCI | |
| Self-Report | ||||||||||||||||||
| YSR_Intern | 18 | 14 | 1.05 | 21 | 22 | –.32 | 18 | 8 | 3.21 | 8 | 10 | –.64 | 15 | 28 | –3.41 | 28 | 36 | –2.1 |
| YSR_Extern | 16 | 16 | .00 | 11 | 27 | –4.35 | 11 | 2 | 2.45 | 7 | 7 | .00 | 34 | 28 | 1.80 | 14 | 17 | –.90 |
| CDI | 16 | 15 | 0.24 | 30 | 16 | 3.39 | 13 | 7 | 1.45 | 1 | / | 14 | 19 | –1.21 | 21 | 8 | 3.14 | |
| Feel KJ_Ad (SR) | 75 | 136 | 5.50 | 88 | 103 | 1.35 | 116 | 127 | .99 | 158 | 175 | 1.53 | 133 | 132 | –.09 | 64 | 71 | .63 |
| Feel KJ_Mal (SR) | 91 | 102 | –.99 | 79 | 86 | .63 | 87 | 84 | .27 | 91 | 59 | 2.89 | 78 | 80 | –.19 | 78 | 89 | .99 |
| Caregiver Report | ||||||||||||||||||
| CBCL_Intern | 28 | 5 | 6.04 | 14 | / | / | 27 | 12 | 6.09 | 5 | / | / | 20 | 15 | 1.31 | 12 | 13 | –.26 |
| CBCL_Extern | 11 | 0 | 3.29 | 5 | / | / | 25 | 8 | 4.62 | 11 | / | / | 26 | 17 | 2.69 | 16 | 20 | –1.20 |
| Feel KJ_Ad (CR) | 68 | 152 | 7.58 | 118 | / | / | 74 | 137 | 5.68 | 105 | / | / | 94 | 124 | 2.71 | 89 | 71 | –1.62 |
| Feel KJ_Mal(CR) | 107 | 78 | 2.62 | 75 | / | / | 60 | 83 | 2.08 | 82 | / | / | 93 | 96 | –0.27 | 93 | 88 | .45 |
[i] Note. RCI > 1.96 = significant change, RCI > 1.30 and < 1.96 = positive trend, Pre = last week of the baseline, Youth Self Report (YSR), Internalizing (Intern), Externalizing (Extern), Child Depression Inventory (CDI), Adaptive Strategies (Feel KJ_Ad), Maladaptive Strategies (Feel KJ_Mal), Self-Report (SR), Child Behavioral Checklist (CBCL), Caregiver Report (CR).
Table 5
Primary outcomes at pretreatment and posttreatment for each participants.
| PRE-INTERVENTIONMEAN (SD) | POST-INTERVENTIONMEAN (SD) | WILCOXON Z | P | EFFECT SIZE | % CHANGE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-Report | ||||||
| YSR_Intern | 18.0 (6.60) | 19.66 (10.98) | –.52 | .60 | –0.15 | +1% |
| YSR_Extern | 15.50 (9.65) | 16.17 (10.41) | .00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | <1% |
| CDI | 15.83 (9.58) | 13 (5.24) | –1.48 | .14 | –0.43 | –18% |
| ERSQ | 48.17 (25.32) | 59.67 (5.75) | –.94 | .35 | –0.27 | +24% |
| Feel KJ_Ad (SR) | 105.67 (36.28) | 124.0 (34.84) | –1.99 | .05* | –0.58 | +17% |
| Feel KJ_Mal (SR) | 84.0 (6.39) | 83.33 (14.08) | –.53 | .60 | –0.15 | <1% |
| Caregiver Report | ||||||
| CBCL_Intern | 17.67 (9.0) | 10.25 (4.57) | –1.46 | .14 | –0.42 | –42% |
| CBCL_Extern | 15.67 (8.38) | 11.25 (9.07) | –1.46 | .14 | –0.42 | –28% |
| Feel KJ_Ad (CR) | 91.33 (18.73) | 121 (35.24) | –1.46 | .14 | –0.42 | +32% |
| Feel KJ-Mal (CR) | 85.0 (15.40) | 86.25 (7.67) | –.37 | .72 | –0.11 | <1% |
[i] Note. Youth Self Report (YSR), Internalizing (Intern), Externalizing (Extern), Self-Report (SR), Child Depression Inventory (CDI), Child Behavioral Checklist (CBCL), Parent-Report (PR), r = .1 = small effect, r = .3 = medium effect, r = .5 = large effect.
Table 6
RCI’s for each participant on each outcome.
| PP1 | PP2 | PP3 | PP4 | PP5 | PP6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YSR_Intern | ✔ | X | X | |||
| YSR_Extern | X | ✔ | ✔ | |||
| CDI | ✔ | ✔ | ||||
| Feel-KJ_Ad (SR) | ✔ | ✔ | ||||
| Feel-KJ_Mal (SR) | ✔ | |||||
| CBCL_Intern | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | |||
| CBCL_Extern | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | |||
| Feel-KJ_Ad (CR) | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | |||
| Feel-KJ_Mal (CR) | ✔ | ✔ |
[i] Note. ✔ = clinical significant improvement, ✔ = clinical trend improvement; X = clinical significant deterioration, X = clinical trend deterioration; Youth Self Report (YSR); Internalizing (Intern); Externalizing (Extern); Self-Report (SR); Child Depression Inventory (CDI); Positive Affect (PA); Negative Affect (NA); Child Behavioral Checklist (CBCL), Caregiver Report (CR).