• Individualized child problem targets and externalizing behavior including functional impairment [ Time Frame: Baseline for continuation (36 months into study participation) and at months 42, 48, 54, 66 (assessment timeline is inclusive of all assessments for parent and continuation trials) ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  
• Peer and Family Characteristics [ Time Frame: Assessed at all follow-up timepoints including baseline (36 month assessment) and all subsequent follow-up assessments at months 42, 48, 54 and 66. ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  
• Parental Disfunction [ Time Frame: Assessed at all timepoints including baseline (36 month) and follow-up assessments at months 42, 48, 54, and 66 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  

• Teacher reports of child functioning [ Time Frame: Assessed at all timepoints including baseline (36 month) and follow-up assessments at months 42, 48, 54, and 66 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  
• Child attentional and internalizing problems [ Time Frame: Assessed at all timepoints including baseline (36 month) and follow-up assessments at months 42, 48, 54, and 66 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  

Child Conduct problems (CP), as found in Conduct Disorder (CD) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), are common and chronic. Although laboratory research studies have yielded promising initial outcomes, follow-up effects are often not studied and, when they are evaluated, are often limited. Maintenance procedures have been generally administered after acute treatment in the form of periodic booster sessions to enhance long-term outcomes (Whisman, 1990). Although the conceptualization and application of maintenance therapies has been described frequently with adults, there is limited information regarding the role of maintenance treatment in child and adolescent psychotherapy (see Eyeberg, 1998). A few studies of booster treatments have reported the return of behavioral improvements (Baer, Williams, Osnes, & Stokes, 1984; McDonald & Budd, 1983; Patterson, 1974) and other improvements in conduct-disordered children (Lochman, 1992) and depressed adolescents (Clark et al., 1999), suggesting potential benefits in extending the durability of treatment effects. What is not yet known is the extent to which patients respond positively to a booster (maintenance) treatment condition that is administered after long-term (i.e., three-year) follow-up, one that is designed to reduce recurrence of behavioral dysfunction and the development of new forms of dysfunction during adolescence. The justification for this additional intervention derives from our initial findings and the young age of our sample, which, in most instances, has yet to traverse the period of heightened risk for delinquency.

Literature reviews highlight the importance of addressing at least three primary objectives in understanding the clinical response and long-term adjustment of children with ODD or CD. First, there is a need to document empirically the long-term effects of both specialty treatments and routine services during repeated follow-up assessments in an effort to document the maintenance of all initial treatment gains (Eyberg et al., 1998). Our preliminary findings suggesting the presence of both similarities and differences in the initial outcomes of our two specialty treatments (Community vs. Clinic protocols) supports the conduct of a long-term evaluation in order to determine whether these effects continue or change.

Second, our initial findings underscore the importance of determining the extent to which booster treatment sessions help to promote long-term maintenance or produce long-term preventive effects on some of the more common sequelae of ODD and CD. Booster treatment may be needed to deflect such children from unfolding trajectories toward increased antisocial behavior and multi-system impairments (Loeber et al., 1993). Thus, efforts to promote the long-term outcomes of follow-up in this population must be evaluated in an effort to understand the degree to which they show improvements in serious clinical dysfunction (recovery from Disruptive Behavior Disorders (DBD)) and/or show reductions in the development of new forms of dysfunction (deviant and delinquent activities) that may place these children at-risk for other adverse adolescent outcomes. The young age of this patient sample at the start of this competing continuation(8-16 yrs) may make it easier to demonstrate preventive effects.

Finally, the availability of only modest empirical evidence provides a compelling argument for evaluating potential predictors of each of the above-mentioned long-term follow-up outcomes based on a comprehensive battery of psychosocial (e.g., child, parent, and family adjustment) and biological (e.g., testosterone, cortisol) measures obtained upon study intake and treatment termination. Key predictors of treatment response include lower levels of child, parent, and family dysfunction, barriers to treatment, and SES (Kazdin, 1995; Kazdin & Wassell, 2000). We will also evaluate the role of contextual or other life changes in understanding treatment effects over the follow up period. Among the important contextual variables to be evaluated include changes in parental and family functioning, peer relationships, and school adjustment. Clearly, these variables may influence continued antisocial behavior at this young age. Thus, we will examine how contextual factors affect how well treatment effects hold as well as the real world impact of treatment on various life changes.