1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«Despite the proliferation of prevention programs targeting young disruptive children at risk for later delinquency, few studies have assessed their long-term impact on later delinquency (Farrington and Welsh 2013). Therefore, the long-term success of many of these prevention programs remains unknown.» (p. 412) «The first goal of the current study was to use an intent-to-treat strategy to examine the impact of the MLES [Montreal Longitudinal-Experimental Study] preventive intervention across three developmental periods (early adolescence: 11, 12, and 13 years, mid-adolescence: 14, 15, and 16 years, and late adolescence/early adulthood: 17, 23, and 28 years). […] In sum, the second and third goals of this study were, respectively, to compare the results from the MELS using an ITT [intent to-treat] approach and a non-ITTapproach and to compare the adherents and non-adherents on baseline and outcome measures. A final goal of this study was to examine the possible differential impact of the MLES prevention program on violence against persons (i.e., personal violence) and violence against property (i.e., property violence, including theft, vandalism).» (p. 413-414)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
«The boys who participated in this study were drawn from a sample of 1,161 boys whose disruptiveness was assessed by their teachers in kindergarten (mean age=6.0 years, SD= 0.3). In kindergarten, the boys in the sample were in 53 schools located in low socioeconomic status (SES) areas of Montreal, Canada». (p. 414)

Instruments :
Questionnaires «Social Behavior» et «Self-Reported Delinquency»

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse statistique

3. Résumé

«This preventive intervention consisted of a multicomponent program that targeted disruptive kindergarten boys from low socioeconomic area schools when they were between 7 and 9 years old. The 2-year program included a home-based parent training component and a school-based socialcognitive skills training component.» (p. 412) «In sum, the early elementary school preventive intervention for disruptive kindergarten boys had a significant impact on property violence but did not impact personal violence, at least not in a convincing and consistent manner. […] By improving parenting and positive peer affiliation (Tremblay et al. 1995; Vitaro et al. 2001), the program changed mainly environmental factors that may influence property violence more than personal violence. Hence, future prevention efforts for disruptive children need to include components designed to improve their verbal and cognitive abilities as well as their social skills and their parents’ behaviors in an attempt to achieve a stronger impact on personal violence.» (p. 422-423)