Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 156 views

    Debate Analysis Paper

    Uploaded by

    api-289910399
    The document summarizes a debate between groups arguing for either the Friends program or Cool Kids program for treating childhood anxiety. The Friends group presented evidence that Friends is a universal, evidence-based program backed by the WHO that teaches coping skills in a cost-effective way within schools. They rebutted concerns about its efficacy and teacher implementation. The Friends program was determined to be the better choice over the more intensive Cool Kids program.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Debate Analysis Paper

    Uploaded by

    api-289910399
    156 views6 pages
    The document summarizes a debate between groups arguing for either the Friends program or Cool Kids program for treating childhood anxiety. The Friends group presented evidence that Friends is a universal, evidence-based program backed by the WHO that teaches coping skills in a cost-effective way within schools. They rebutted concerns about its efficacy and teacher implementation. The Friends program was determined to be the better choice over the more intensive Cool Kids program.

    Original Title

    debate analysis paper

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a debate between groups arguing for either the Friends program or Cool Kids program for treating childhood anxiety. The Friends group presented evidence that Friends is a universal, evidence-based program backed by the WHO that teaches coping skills in a cost-effective way within schools. They rebutted concerns about its efficacy and teacher implementation. The Friends program was determined to be the better choice over the more intensive Cool Kids program.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    156 views6 pages

    Debate Analysis Paper

    Uploaded by

    api-289910399
    The document summarizes a debate between groups arguing for either the Friends program or Cool Kids program for treating childhood anxiety. The Friends group presented evidence that Friends is a universal, evidence-based program backed by the WHO that teaches coping skills in a cost-effective way within schools. They rebutted concerns about its efficacy and teacher implementation. The Friends program was determined to be the better choice over the more intensive Cool Kids program.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    Running Head: DEBATE ANALYSIS PAPER: FRIENDS

    DebateAnalysisPaper:Friends

    ChristinaMajcher
    EDPS612.03

    June7,2015

    DEBATE ANALYSIS: FRIENDS

    ThisdebateanalysispaperisbasedontheCBTforAnxietypresentation.Itwillfocuson
    theprogramFriends.Inparticular,thispaperwillsummarizethepresentersoverviewof
    Friends,summarizetheargumentspresentedsupportingFriends,reviewtheargumentspresented
    againsttheopposinginterventionprogram,criticallyanalyzetheargumentsandprovidea
    rationaleforthechoiceoftheFriendsprogramoverCoolKids.
    Friends,auniversalpreventativeprogramforanxietyanddepressionisaresearchand
    evidencebasedtreatmentprogram.Presentersreviewedtheprogramgoalstonormalize
    emotions;teachskillsforeffectivelycopingwithstress,challengesandchange;increase
    emotionalresilienceandproblemsolving;buildfriendshipsandsupportnetworks;enhanceself
    confidenceandselfesteem;andempowerchildrenfamiliesandprofessionals.Therearethree
    versionsoftheprogramsupportingchildrenagefourtosixteen.Thispresentationdiscussedtwo
    theoreticalframeworksthatguidetheFriendsprogram.First,Friendsisbasedonacognitive
    behaviourtherapytheoreticalframeworkwiththehopetoteachindividualstoconnectthoughts,
    feelingsandactions.Second,thisprogramisbasedontheresiliencyframeworkconnectingthe
    importanceofthechildtothefamilyandtheirgreatercommunity.Interestedteachersareableto
    attendaonedaytrainingsessiontobequalifiedtodeliverthe10weekprogrameitherclass
    wide,insmallgroupsorindividually.
    Thepresentinggrouphighlightedseveralstrengthsoftheprogram.First,theyidentified
    thatFriendsisanevidencebasedprogramproventobeaneffectivetoolforanxietytreatment.
    Mostsignificantly,theyindicatedthattheFriendsprogramisrecognizedbytheWorldHealth
    Organizationastheonlyevidencebasedprogrameffectiveatalllevelsofinterventionfor
    anxietyinchildren.Thisisahighcommendation.Theysitedseveraldifferentstudiesthatalso

    DEBATE ANALYSIS: FRIENDS

    illustratedtheefficacyoftheprogram.Second,theynotedthestrengththatFriendsisaschool
    basedprogram.Onceagain,thiswasbackedbyagreatdealofresearch.Asindicatedbythe
    presenters,thereisaconsiderablediscrepancybetweenthenumberofchildrenandyouththat
    havesignificantemotionaldisordersandthosethatreceivesupport.Therearemanyreasonsfor
    thislackofsupport.However,havingaprogramdeliveredwithintheschoolenvironmentmeans
    alargernumberofchildrenwillhaveaccesstoteachersandprofessionalswhocanaddressissues
    ofanxietydirectlywithintheschoolsetting.Thisallowsforeasierandfasteraccesstothe
    program.ThethirdstrengththatwasraisedisthatFriendsisauniversalprogram.Onceagain,
    thepresentersbackedthisstatementupwithagreatdealofresearch.Theyindicatedthatthis
    universaldesignremovestheneedfortimeconsumingscreeningandassessmentprocessesby
    providingaccesstoeveryonewithinaninclusivegroupsetting.Thefourthpointthatwasraised
    wasFriendshasbeenevaluatedasasociallyvalidprogramacrossdifferentcountries.Overall,
    therewasahighratingamongstchildreninmultiplecountrieswhenaskedfortheirthoughtson
    theprogram.ThefifthstrengthhighlightedwasthatFriendsisacknowledgedasananxiety
    preventionprogramthatisbeneficialacrossavarietyofages.Thefinalstrengthpresentedwas
    thatFriendsisacosteffectiveprogramthatinvolvesparentsandteachers.
    Opposinggroupmembersraisedsomeconcernswiththestrengthsthatwerepresented.
    Theyquestionedwhetherornotauniversalprogramwasthebestfittomeettheneedsof
    childrenwithanxiety.Theyhighlightedresearchindicatingthatthisstyleofprogrammayinfact
    nothelpatriskindividualsorthosealreadywithadiagnosedanxietydisorder.Theopposing
    groupalsoquestionedwhetherFriendscouldbeimplementedwithtreatmentfidelity.In
    particular,theyqueriedthechallengesassociatedwithteachersdeliveringtheprogramsin

    DEBATE ANALYSIS: FRIENDS

    alreadybusy,curriculumheavyclassrooms.Theycautionedthatteachersmaybeoverly
    adaptingtheFriendsprogram,impactingthefidelityofthetreatmentandrenderingitineffective.
    ThefinalconcernthatwasraisedwaswhetherornotFriendsisanevidencebasedprogramfor
    thecontext.Theyfocusedonametaanalyticalreviewcompletedthatquestionedthe
    methodologicallimitationsoftheresearchdesign.Mostconcerningwasthestatementthatthis
    studyfoundthatwhenconceptualandmethodologicallimitationswereconsidered,Friendsdid
    nothavetherigorousresearchrequiredtobeanevidencebasedinterventionprogram.
    TheFriendsgroupwasabletoprovideasolidrebuttaltobackuptheirprogramofchoice.
    Theysharedtwostudiesthatcontradictedtheopposinggroupsclaimthattheuniversaldesign
    deliveryofthisprogrammightnotbethebestfitforindividualswithexistinganxiety.Bothof
    thesestudiesindicatedthattheFriendsprogramcanbesuccessfulintreatingchildrenwith
    anxietybothshortandlongterm.Theirsecondrebuttalcenteredaroundtheconcernthatteacher
    maynotbeimplementingtheFriendsprogramwhilemaintainingtreatmentfidelity.Asolid
    counterargumentwaspresentedhighlightinglongitudinalandrandomassignmentstudiesthat
    haveindicatedthesuccessofteachersasleadersoftheprogram.Inaddition,theystatedthatthe
    MinistryofEducationhasworkedtowardsstandardizedtrainingtosupporttreatmentfidelity.
    Finally,thegrouprespondedtotheclaimthattheFriendsprogrammaynotbeanevidencebased
    programforthiscontext.Acontradictorymetaanalysisreviewofchildhoodanxietyprograms
    wassharedindicatingtheFriendsprogramasanestablishedandeffectiveprogramtotreat
    generalizedanxietydisorder.Inaddition,itwasnotedthatFriendswasconsideredoneofthe
    bestofthethirtyonereviewedCBTprograms.Further,thegroupreferredtotwentyfiveyears
    ofresearchandevaluationarticlesavailableontheFriendswebsiteforfurtherreference.

    DEBATE ANALYSIS: FRIENDS

    Itisalsoimportanttoreviewtheconcernsraisedbythisgroupregardingtheopposing
    interventionprogram,CoolKids.First,theyquestionediftheCoolKidsprogramwastimeand
    costeffective.Theyillustratedthatthisprogramisimplementedinsmallgroupstypicallyatthe
    tiertwoandthreelevelsoftheresponsetointerventionframework.Theynotedthatthismay
    leadtotimeconsumingandexpensivescreeningandassessmentaswellasrequireseveral
    trainedprofessionalstoimplementtheprogram.Next,theywonderedifCoolKidswasa
    programthatwasappropriateforaschoolbasedsetting.Thisprogramrequirestrained
    psychologistsorcounsellorstofacilitateimplementation,whichcanbelogisticallyvery
    challengingwithinaschoolsetting.Thenextquestionthattheygroupraisedwaswhetherthere
    wereconcernswithimplementingasmallgroupprogramspecificallytochildrenwhoareatrisk
    foranxiety.Concernsregardingstigmatizationsurroundingpulloutprogramswereindicated
    alongwithparentaldiscomfortsurroundingpotentiallabels.Finally,thegroupwonderedifthere
    isenoughresearchtoprovethatCoolKidsisaneffective,evidencebasedprogramforchildren
    withanxiety.Theynotedthatitwasdifficulttofindpeerreviewedresearcharticles.The
    articlesthatwerefoundwerebytheauthoredorcoauthoredbythecreatoroftheprogram,
    indicatinganeedforfurtherindependentresearch.
    Whenanalyzingthedebates,itwasclearthattheFriendsgroupcompletedagreatdealof
    backgroundresearchtobackuptheirpresentation.Theyinsuredarticleswerepeerreviewedand
    withstrongstatisticalvalidity.Inaddition,theyhighlightedsomekeyfactorsinprogram
    evaluationandresearchdesign.Theyconsideredquestionssuchasbudgeting,staffing,
    materials,programandtheclients.Theyhighlightedconcernsregardingthequalityofservice
    deliverysuchastheaccessibilityoftheprogram,thetimeliness,theresponsivenessandthe

    DEBATE ANALYSIS: FRIENDS

    overallsatisfactionofparticipantsandtheirparents.Theyidentifiedfactorsaffectingthecost
    benefitcontinuum,highlightingtheneedtousescarceresourcesinthebestwaypossibleto
    prioritizeneedswithinaschoolordistrict.Furthermore,theylinkedthisneedtothegreaterneed
    ofmentalhealthserviceswithinBritishColumbia.Thisleadtoastrongpresentationbalanced
    withthoroughbackgroundresearch.
    TheFriendsgrouppresentedanargumentthatwasaclearwinner.Theydescribeda
    programthatoutweighsthealternateprogram.TheFriendsprogramisaneffectivetierone
    interventionsuitabletobedeliveredbyclassroomteachers.Itiswellresearchedandbackedby
    theWorldHealthOrganization.Thisuniversaldesignapproachismostsuitedtoourcurrent
    budgetneedsandtheshiftsthatarehappeningwithinourlocalschooldistricts.Itisaneffective
    waytoreachmorechildren,whilecontinuingtotargetthosewithgreaterneeds.Therewill
    alwaysbechildrenthatrequireahigherlevelofinterventionthantheFriendsprogrammayoffer.
    However,thisprogrameffectivelyreducestheamountofresourcesrequiredwhenitmay
    effectivelyandefficientlyteachtheskillsthatachildisrequiring.Furthermore,itopensupan
    avenuetohaveadialoguewhenachildisnotrespondingtothisinterventionandmayrequire
    furthersupportsandservices.AllschoolswouldbenefitfromhavingtheFriendsprogram
    available.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy