Program Profile: I Can Problem Solve (ICPS)

This is a universal school-based prevention program that trains children by offering them a variety of solutions to problems. The program is rated Promising. Treatment group students demonstrated statistically significant improvements on measures of problem solving, understanding consequences, and self-regulation, compared with the improvements made by control group students. However, there was no statistically significant effect on social competence.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

Program Goals/Target Population

I Can Problem Solve (ICPS) is a school-based prevention program that trains children in generating a variety of solutions to problems, considering and understanding the possible consequences of those solutions, and recognizing thoughts, feelings, and motives that can lead to problem situations. ICPS is designed for young children, typically around the ages of 4 to 12, who are of lower and middle socioeconomic status, live in principally urban and rural settings, from multiple ethnic groups, and may be at risk for behavioral dysfunctions and interpersonal maladjustment. The program was created to encourage critical thinking, cognitive processing, and problem solving in young children, based on the principle of teaching "how to think" rather than "what to think."

Program Components

The ICPS curriculum consists of 3 manuals: Preschool (59 lessons); Kindergarten/Primary grades (Kindergarten through Grade 2, 83 lessons); and Intermediate Elementary Grades (Grade 3 through Grade 6, 77 lessons). These individual 20- to 40-minute lessons are integrated into all teaching areas. Each lesson has a stated purpose, suggested material, and script teachers use to guide the class. Ideally, lessons are delivered between three and five times a week. Lessons encourage children to be creative in finding solutions, and to develop a habit of problem solving and contemplating those solutions and potential consequences. The program includes both formal lessons and specific suggestions for incorporating ICPS principles into daily classroom activities.

Early lessons focus on word concepts and pre-problem-solving skills to understand and recognize other people’s feelings. The lessons that follow aim to help children identify their feelings and the feelings of others, with later lessons using role playing and "dialoguing" to enhance their problem-solving skills. The teacher can strictly follow the lesson plan or be creative with content, as long as the concepts of the lesson are taught. These concepts can also be incorporated into academic subjects, such as reading and math. Various techniques and tools including games, puppets, role playing, and stories are used in lessons throughout the course. In addition, teachers and other school personnel learn how to use the problem solving approach (called "ICPS Dialoguing") outside of the formal lessons. Dialoguing guides children to use their newly acquired problem solving skills when problems occur in real life.

Key Personnel

The ICPS intervention requires a qualified and trained teacher to implement the program within his or her classroom. It also requires a lesson guide to lead the classroom through the program.

Study

In an independent study conducted by Boyle and Hassett–Walker (2008), matched pairs of schools were randomly assigned to either ICPS instruction or control status. The student sample included 226 students who were assigned to one of three groups: the 2-year ICPS group (n = 96) received ICPS instruction for 2 consecutive years; the 1-year ICPS group (n = 106) received ICPS instruction for 1 year only in kindergarten or 1st grade; and the control group (n = 24) received no ICPS instruction.

More than 80 percent of participants in each group were Hispanic. African American students made up 9 percent of the 2-year instruction group and 5 percent of the 1-year instruction group. None of the control group participants were African American. A small percentage of participants in each group were white. Each group had more females than males. Additionally, more than 90 percent of children in all three groups were receiving a discounted lunch, a measure used as an indicator of income level.

Chi-square analyses revealed no significant differences among the groups in race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or gender. Two behavior ratings scales were employed: the Preschool Social Behavior Scale (PSBS) and the Hahnemann Behavior Rating Scale (HBRS). The PSBS is a 16-item Likert behavior rating scale that measures aggression and prosocial behavior. Teachers used the PSBS to rate children on items such as whether they are good at sharing or they shove other children. The HBRS is an 11-item Likert scale that measures aggression, impulsivity, passivity, and prosocial behavior. Teachers used to HBRS to rate children on items such as whether they are easily angered or overly timid. Analysis was conducted using multiple analysis of covariance and analysis of covariance techniques. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

Study

Kumpfer and colleagues (2002) conducted a quasi-experimental evaluation of ICPS. A total of 655 children were recruited from the 1st grade classes of 12 schools in two Rocky Mountain districts. Classrooms were randomly assigned to one of four conditions; an ICPS–only treatment group (n = 256), an ICPS combined with the full Strengthening Families program treatment group (n = 56), an ICPS combined with only the parent module of the Strengthening Families program treatment group (n = 21), and a no-treatment control group (n = 322). The CrimeSolutions review of this study examined the outcomes of the ICPS–only treatment group and compared them with the outcomes of the control group. The overall sample was 87 percent Caucasian and 7.6 percent Hispanic, with an average Hollingshead index position indicating a largely middle-class sample. The majority of the sample (53 percent) was female; 6 percent were enrolled in special education and 3.2 percent had a documented learning disability.

The study authors designed constructs for measuring school bonding, parenting skills, social competence, and self-regulation by deriving various indices from questionnaires administered to children, parents, and teachers. Questionnaires were administered at the beginning and end of the intervention year. The results show scores on each item and the study estimates effect sizes and mean differences controlling for group differences in the baseline measurements. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

Study

Shure and Spivack (1982) conducted a quasi-experimental evaluation of an interpersonal cognitive problem-solving intervention, which would later be called I Can Problem Solve (ICPS), followed low-income, inner-city African American nursery school and kindergarten children to evaluate them over a 2-year period. Subjects in the year 1 evaluation included 113 children (47 boys and 66 girls) trained in ICPS, and 106 control children (50 boys and 56 girls). In year 2 of the evaluation, the 131 children were divided into four groups: a twice trained group (n = 39); a trained in nursery school group (n = 30); a trained in kindergarten group (n = 35); and a never-trained control group (n = 27). The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the outcomes of the year 1 evaluation. At baseline the average age of the sample was 4 years and 3 months, with equality of the groups in age distribution, IQ, ICPS test scores, and behavioral characteristics. On average, treatment children were trained for 12 full weeks in formal, scripted sessions implemented by their teacher throughout the school day.

Researchers collected information on interpersonal cognitive problem-solving measures each year immediately before and following the 12-week intervention, for a total of four assessments. The measures were used to test children’s abilities to problem solve and understand consequences, and to evaluate teacher-rated interpersonal behavior in the classroom. Data was analyzed using analysis of variance. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

Training models for teachers or support staff (e.g., guidance counselors, school psychologists, social workers, school nurses) are available on and off site, and include a customized follow-up consultation by an I Can Problem Solve–approved trainer. A 2-day training model is preferred, but a 1-day training model also is offered if necessary.

More information can be found on the I Can Problem Solve website.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Universal School-Based Social Information Processing Interventions for Aggression

School-based violence prevention interventions that target social information-processing difficulties in students, aiming to reduce the aggressive and disruptive behavior of school-aged children. The practice is rated Promising for reducing aggressive behavior in school-aged children.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - Aggression

Targeted School-Based Social Information-Processing Interventions for Aggression

This practice examines targeted prevention efforts for particular students that attempt to improve one or more aspects of the students’ social information processing, aiming to prevent and/or reduce aggressive or violent behavior in school-aged children. The practice is rated Effective for reducing aggressive behavior in school-aged children.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - Aggression

Social Skills Training for Preventing Antisocial Behavior of Youth

This practice involves the promotion of social and social-cognitive competencies to prevent future antisocial behavior. The practice is rated Effective for preventing overall antisocial behavior, aggression, delinquency, oppositional and disruptive behaviors, and general antisocial behavior.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - Overall antisocial behavior
	Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - Aggression
	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - Oppositional/disruptive behaviors
	Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - General antisocial behaviors

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?