The role of psychosocial stress on a family-based treatment for adolescents with problematic behaviors

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article The Role of Psychosocial Stress on a Family-Based Treatment for Adolescents with Problematic Behaviors Jesús Maya 1ID , Bárbara Lorence 2,*ID , Victoria Hidalgo 1and Lucía Jiménez 1 1Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, University of Seville, Camilo JoséCela s/n, 41018 Seville, Spain; [email protected] (J.M.); [email protected] (V.H.); [email protected] (L.J.) 2Department of Social, Developmental and Educational Psychology, University of Huelva, Avda. Tres de Marzo s/n, 21071 Huelva, Spain *Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-959-219-209 Received: 26 July 2018; Accepted: 27 August 2018; Published: 29 August 2018   Abstract: The stressful life events experienced by adolescents with problematic behaviors, should be considered for implementing effective interventions. This study aimed to examine the adjustment of adolescents with problematic behaviors, and to assess the effectiveness of a family-based treatment, namely Scene-Based Psychodramatic Family Therapy (SB-PFT), according to different stress profiles. Ten SB-PFT sessions, over 17 trials were implemented. Stressful life events and adolescent adjustment were evaluated at pretest and posttest, for the SB-PFT participants (n= 104 adolescents) and a control group (n= 106). The adolescents were categorized into three profiles depending on the nature of the stressors: family stress profile, individual and family stress profile, and low stress profile. The individual and family stress group showed worse adjustment. Effectiveness analyses revealed improvements in SB-PFT participants’ emotional intelligence, but not in anger and hostility. Furthermore, adolescents with low and family-related stress profiles showed enhancements in parent attachment. In conclusion, interventions involving adolescents with problematic behaviors must be tailored to the stressful life events experienced. Specific treatments should be used alongside SB-PFT, when adolescents are met with individual-related stress. Nevertheless, SB-PFT seemed to promote emotional intelligence and parent attachment, particularly in adolescents with problematic behaviors that experienced only family stressors. Keywords: adolescence; behavior problems; stressful life events; emotional intelligence; parent attachment; effectiveness; family therapy 1. Introduction Adolescents deal with several biological, cognitive, and psychosocial changes [ 1 ], some of which may be identified as potentially stressful among this population [ 2 ]. According to Lazarus and Folkman [ 3 ], how the individuals assess potentially stressful events and the resources they have to address these events will determine their stress status. Psychosocial stress in adolescents is accentuated by the presence of stressors or stressful life events that threaten their capabilities [ 2 ]. These stressful events may vary depending on the specific life domain, and can compromise adolescent development and well-being [2,4]. Special attention has been paid to the impact of stressful life events of an environmental nature on adolescence, such as living in priority neighborhoods that cope with social and economic challenges [2,5] . The effects of family stress factors, such as low household incomes, parental conflict and divorce, and a parent’s illness have been also examined [ 6 , 7 ]. The presence of these environmental and family stressors is negatively related to adjustment and mental health in adolescents, and Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1867; doi:10.3390/ijerph15091867 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1867 2 of 19 precipitates the onset of problematic behaviors [ 2 , 6 , 8 ]. Specifically, financial instability and belonging to a priority area are associated with increased psychosocial stress and maladjustment in adolescence [ 2 , 9 ]. Family stressful events, such as marital conflict and parental divorce, also represent situations which significantly increase an adolescent’s family stress load, and are related to the presence of problematic behaviors [ 6 , 7 ]. Furthermore, these stressful events may be comorbid. The negative effects of divorce on children have been shown to seemingly increase when families face economic hardship [ 7 ]. Along these lines, another source of family stress, such as parental illness, also seems to correlate with the presence of problematic behaviors during adolescence [6]. These environmental and family stressors can be accompanied by individual stressful events experienced by adolescents themselves, which place these youths in a particularly vulnerable situation [ 10 , 11 ]. Specifically, exposure to serious situations, such as peer victimization or bullying, family abuse, or sexual abuse has a negative impact on adolescent adjustment and mental health [ 12 ]. Of these individual stressors, peer victimization or bullying is reported as being the most prevalent among adolescents [ 13 , 14 ]. Adolescents’ perceptions about feeling rejected, alienated, and harassed by peers during the bullying process can have major psychological consequences such as anxiety, depression, and externalizing problems as aggressive and disruptive behaviors [ 15 – 18 ]. Additionally, these symptoms in extreme cases during early adolescence can lead to a bipolar disorder diagnosis. Bipolar disorder may even be accompanied by abnormalities in white matter connectivity, and impairment of the neuronal circuits involved in emotional regulation [ 19 ]. Moreover, there are other contexts in which adolescents may also suffer from violence, such as the family context. These situations may be a leading source of psychosocial stress for adolescents. Specifically, aggressive behaviors from parents towards their sons and daughters are related to adolescent maladjustment and problematic behaviors [ 20 , 21 ]. Finally, although epidemiologically less frequent [ 13 ], when referring to individual stressful life events in young people, we cannot ignore cases of sexual abuse. Specifically, these events can precipitate the development of internalizing problems, such as depression [ 22 ] and problematic behaviors including sexual offending and violent acts [23,24]. The link between stressful life events and the problematic behaviors presented above, could be explained from several theories. General strain theory (GST) [ 25 ] highlights how exposure to stressful events generates negative emotions, such as anger and hostility, which hinder the individual’s ability to successfully respond to environmental demands, instead promoting violent behavior as a way of escaping from stressors. The frustration–aggression hypothesis [ 26 ], argues that stressful events perceived as uncontrollable and unfair bring with them a series of negative feelings of frustration, thereby increasing the individual’s risk for developing problematic behaviors. More recently, I 3 theory [ 27 , 28 ] suggests that tackling stressful events uses up the individual’s self-regulation strategies, thus making it difficult to develop the skills needed to inhibit any violent impulses. In sum, stressful life events mobilize the resources that adolescents draw on to manage stressors; this increases levels of emotional strain and facilitates the emergence of problematic behaviors in the absence of adequate cognitive, behavioral, and emotional stressor management. Although stressful life events hinder adolescent development and a smooth transition to adulthood, not all stressful situations have the same consequences for adolescents [ 29 , 30 ]. Thus, the presence of protective factors at family (e.g., a strong parental bond) and individual level (such as good emotional intelligence), can buffer the negative impact of stressful life events [ 29 , 31 ]. In terms of the parent–child relationship, it has been shown that positive parenting practices reduce the negative psychological consequences behind stressful life events [ 32 , 33 ]. Thus, positive parenting is associated with decreased levels of psychosocial stress and better self-regulation in adolescents, so they can better cope with stressful situations [ 34 , 35 ]. Furthermore, we count on evidence that a parent–adolescent relationship built on support, communication, and caring renders adolescents less likely to develop problematic behaviors when faced with individual stressful situations, such as peer victimization [ 17 , 36 , 37 ]. Regarding individual protective factors, emotional intelligence in adolescents appears to moderate the negative impact of perceived psychosocial stress [ 38 , 39 ]. Moreover, emotional Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1867 3 of 19 understanding and emotional management mitigates the negative effects of perceived psychosocial stress and enhances life satisfaction in adolescence [ 31 , 40 ]. In fact, Hsieh et al. [ 41 ] observed that a better understanding of own and others’ emotions in adolescent victims of peer victimization moderated their degree of hostility. 1.1. Interventions Involving Adolescents with Problematic Behaviors. The Scene-Based Psychodramatic Family Therapy Throughout this introduction, we have described how the stressful life events of different nature that adolescents face, represent a risk factor for the onset of adolescent’s problematic behaviors [ 6 , 8 , 42 ]. Problematic behaviors exhibited by adolescents, such as disobedience, fighting, lying, physical and/or verbal aggression, expulsion from school, and other forms of maladaptive conduct constitute nowadays a social concern, as may culminate with young boys and girls being involved in the criminal justice system [43,44]. Recent decades have seen a significant increase in interventions aimed at reducing disruptive behaviors in adolescents exposed to stressful situations. These initiatives seek to promote individual, family, and environmental protective factors to buffer the negative effects of exposure to risky situations that compromise adolescent well-being, i.e., neighborhoods with high rates of violence, truancy, family stress, peer substance abuse, etcetera [12,29,45]. Adolescents with problematic behaviors are often described homogeneously, although diverse risk profiles emerge in this population, both at an individual and family level [ 44 ]. For this reason, diverse profiles of adolescents with problematic behaviors should be considered when designing and evaluating intervention programs aimed at this population, to diversify and adapt available resources according to their specific profiles [ 46 ]. Specifically, the empirical evidence available underlines the importance of controlling for the presence and nature of stressful events to ensure that these interventions are effective [10,11]. Current family-based treatment programs for adolescents with behavior problems and their parents, recognized by Blueprints for healthy youth development [ 47 ], include Multisystemic Therapy (MST) [ 48 ] and Functional Family Therapy (FFT) [ 44 ]. Both treatments are based on the family therapy model, and aim to reduce adolescent problematic behaviors. The outcomes that these treatments seek to achieve include promoting positive parenting, positive adaptation and adjustment in adolescents, the acquisition of conflict resolution strategies, and improving family relationships as a main protective factor [49,50]. The Scene-Based Psychodramatic Family Therapy (SB-PFT) constitutes a novel treatment, specifically designed for families with adolescents with problematic behaviors from priority neighborhoods [ 51 , 52 ]. SB-PFT is a specific approach aimed at improving family relationships and reducing adolescent’s problematic behaviors [ 51 – 53 ]. It integrates the principles and techniques of systemic family therapy (e.g., the importance of including all family members and focusing intervention on dysfunctional family relationships), with psychodramatic techniques (e.g., role-playing, role reversal, mirror, scene) using a multiple-family group format [ 52 , 54 , 55 ]. The usefulness of using psychodramatic techniques in the therapeutic process has recently been recognized in the European context [ 55 ]. From the perspective of multiple-family groups followed by SB-PFT, several family systems are worked on together therapeutically [ 56 ]. Multiple-family groups have proven effective in promoting parent-child communication and problem solving [ 56 ]. In SB-PFT, 10 weekly 2-h intervention sessions are held [ 51 , 52 ]. Each SB-PFT group is led by two psychotherapists trained in systemic family therapy and psychodrama, and two auxiliary egos who are experts in psychodramatic techniques [ 52 ]. The core contents dealt with during the sessions cover: conflicts in parent–adolescent interaction, and adolescent-experienced stressful situations (such as parental separation and conflict, violence at home, and peer conflict). The contents targeted in each SB-PFT session depend on the needs of the participants assessed by the professionals (i.e., adolescents’ conflicts with their parents or in the social context), as well as on the problem situations that the participants express during the Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1867 4 of 19 therapeutic process. Each session of the SB-PFT follows a similar structure [ 52 ]. First, the therapists and auxiliary egos decide on the therapeutic objectives of the session, according to the components of the family system which may be influencing the problematic behaviors of the adolescents. Second, the auxiliary egos dramatize a conflictive situation. Finally, adolescents and parents discuss the content, and engage in a role-play with the auxiliary ego to express their emotions, become aware of their strengths and difficulties as a family, be able to order their emotions, and develop other ways to resolve family conflicts (or social conflicts) without using disruptive behaviors [ 52 ]. In this process, the psychodramatic techniques and the group therapeutic factors [ 55 , 57 ] play a relevant role. Specifically, the importance of knowing other adolescents in the same situation and acknowledging interpersonal learning are important components of the SB-PFT. In general terms, the SB-PFT seeks to provide an opportunity for adolescents and their parents to not only express and free the emotional strain behind existing conflicts, but to also acquire other conflict resolution strategies through dramatization and group integration in a therapeutic context with some family system [55,58]. 1.2. Present Study Although SB-PFT constitutes an innovative treatment, evidence supporting its effectiveness has been found in relation to emotional intelligence, parent attachment, and antisocial behavior [ 55 ]. To our knowledge, there are no studies that describe and assess the role of psychosocial stress on adolescents participating in SB-PFT, with a focus on the nature of the stressors. Data on the high prevalence of stressful life events among Spanish adolescents (83% have experienced a stressful situation in their lives), have driven the development of initiatives and interventions involving these adolescents [ 13 ]. This high prevalence suggests the need for exploring in more depth, the role that psychosocial stress plays during adolescence, and for developing evidence-based interventions that minimize the negative effects of specific stressful life events. Hence, the differential impact of stressful life events, according to specific life domains, should be considered [ 4 ]. For this reason, in this study the adolescents were grouped according to the presence of family or/and individual stressors. Specifically, this study aimed to: (1) Examine variability in emotional intelligence, aggressive behavior, and parent attachment in adolescents with problematic behaviors, according to the experience of stressful life events; and (2) Assess the effectiveness of SB-PFT treatment in adolescents with problematic behaviors, by each stress profile. Concerning the first objective, we expect that adolescents who had experienced both family and individual stressors, will exhibit the highest maladaptive profile. Regarding the second objective, we expect SB-PFT effectiveness for all the stress profiles, compared to the control group. Specifically, because SB-PFT is a multiple-family intervention, we expect higher effectiveness for adolescents who had experienced family stressors. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Study Design This study was part of a larger research project aimed at describing and evaluating the effectiveness of a scene-based psychodramatic family therapy (SB-PFT) treatment run by Child Welfare Services (CWS), across 10 priority areas of southern Spain from 2015 to 2017. CWS are public services that deliver assistance to mitigate family problem situations. Their intervention areas cover environmental changes, such as improving family functioning, to ensure comprehensive child and adolescent development [ 59 ]. For this study, a quasi-experimental design was followed, using pretest (T1) and posttest (T2) measures, for both the intervention (IG) and control group (CG). 2.2. Participants For the SB-PFT treatment, 17 trials were conducted with 10 sessions per trial (one session per week), and an average of 8 adolescents and their caregivers per trial. For the purpose of this study, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1867 5 of 19 210 adolescents participated. Each adolescent from the IG participated in only one trial. Participants attended, on average, 8 sessions. The flow of cases through the study is shown in Figure 1. As can be observed in this figure, a 28.77% IG dropout rate and an 18.46% CG dropout rate were obtained. The IG ended up comprising 104 adolescents, and the CG 106 adolescents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 5 of 18 Figure 1. Flowchart of participants throughout the study. The baseline characteristics of the IG completers, the CG completers, and the total sample are shown in Table 1. Regarding sociodemographic characteristics, a comparable profile was observed between the IG and the CG across all variables examined. As can be seen in Table 1, the sample was equally distributed by gender, yielding an average age of 14 years. By studying the psychosocial stress profiles, severe financial problems and chronic parental conflict, emerged as the most salient family stress factors. Individual stress factors were less frequent, with bulling or peer victimization ranked as the most prevalent stressors. Stressful event occurrence was comparable between the IG and the CG, except for chronic parental conflict, parent’s new partner, and parent’s mental or physical illness (higher occurrence reported in the IG). Based on the stressful life events reported in this table, four stress profiles were established: (1) a family stress profile (FSP), comprising participants that had experienced only family-related stress factors (n = 92; 43.80% of the total sample); (2) an individual stress profile (ISP), made up of those adolescents who only experienced individual stress factors associated with violent episodes (n = 10; 4.8% of the sample); (3) an individual and family stress profile (IFSP), including those participants who experienced both family and individual stress factors (n = 71; 33.80% of the sample); and (4) a low stress profile (LSP), comprising adolescents who did not experience any family or individual factors in the five years prior to the study, from those listed in Table 1 (n = 37; 17.60% of the total sample), despite residing in potentially stressful neighborhoods. Given profile 2 (ISP) was made up of a small number of participants (n = 10), this group was excluded from subsequent analyses due to statistical power concerns. Stress profiles were distributed throughout both the IG and the CG, as follows: FSP (IG: 52.17%, CG: 47.83%); IFSP (IG: 59.15%, CG: 40.84%); and LSP (IG: 27.03%, CG: 72.97%). Total sample: N = 276 Completed T1 + T2: n = 108 Lost to T2: •Impossible to contact (n = 19) •Declined to participate (n = 3) Analyzed: n = 104 •Statistical assumptions not met (n = 1) •Missing data (n = 2) Intervention Group: n = 146 completed T1 Control Group: n = 130 completed T1 Completed T1 + T2: n = 107 Lost to T2: •Discontinued treatment (n = 34) •Declined to participate (n = 5) Analyzed: n = 106 •Statistical assumptions not met (n = 1) •Missing data (n = 1) Figure 1. Flowchart of participants throughout the study. The baseline characteristics of the IG completers, the CG completers, and the total sample are shown in Table 1. Regarding sociodemographic characteristics, a comparable profile was observed between the IG and the CG across all variables examined. As can be seen in Table 1, the sample was equally distributed by gender, yielding an average age of 14 years. By studying the psychosocial stress profiles, severe financial problems and chronic parental conflict, emerged as the most salient family stress factors. Individual stress factors were less frequent, with bulling or peer victimization ranked as the most prevalent stressors. Stressful event occurrence was comparable between the IG and the CG, except for chronic parental conflict, parent’s new partner, and parent’s mental or physical illness (higher occurrence reported in the IG). Based on the stressful life events reported in this table, four stress profiles were established: (1) a family stress profile (FSP), comprising participants that had experienced only family-related stress factors (n= 92; 43.80% of the total sample); (2) an individual stress profile (ISP), made up of those adolescents who only experienced individual stress factors associated with violent episodes (n= 10; 4.8% of the sample); (3) an individual and family stress profile (IFSP), including those participants who experienced both family and individual stress factors (n= 71; 33.80% of the sample); and (4) a low stress profile (LSP), comprising adolescents who did not experience any family or individual factors in the five years prior to the study, from those listed in Table 1(n= 37; 17.60% of the total sample), despite residing in potentially stressful neighborhoods. Given profile 2 (ISP) was made up of a small number of participants (n= 10), this group was excluded from subsequent analyses due to statistical power concerns. Stress profiles were distributed throughout both the IG and the CG, as follows: FSP (IG: 52.17%, CG: 47.83%); IFSP (IG: 59.15%, CG: 40.84%); and LSP (IG: 27.03%, CG: 72.97%). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1867 6 of 19 Table 1. Baseline Characteristics for the Intervention Group (IG) and the Control Group (CG): Sociodemographic and Psychosocial Stress Profiles. Profile Total (n= 210) IG (n= 104) CG (n= 106) Differences Adolescents Girls 50.50% 49.00% 52.00% χ2= 0.17 n.s. Age M= 14.34, SD = 1.47 M= 14.16, SD = 1.48 M= 14.52, SD = 1.44 F= 3.07 n.s. Families Two-parent structure 61.86% 58.33% 65.42% χ2= 0.86 n.s. Number of members M= 4.00, SD = 1.10 M= 4.07, SD = 1.16 M= 3.94, SD = 1.05 F= 0.68 n.s. Family-related stressful events Severe financial problems 46.20% 48.10% 44.30% χ2= 0.29 n.s. Chronic parental conflict 40.00% 47.10% 33.00% χ2= 4.35 * (0.14) 1 Parents’ divorce 28.60% 34.60% 22.60% χ2= 3.69 n.s. Parent’s new partner 24.80% 34.60% 15.10% χ2= 10.74 ** (0.23) 1 Parent’s mental or physical illness 24.30% 30.80% 17.90% χ2= 4.71 * (0.15) 1 Individual stressful events Bullying (peer victimization) 28.10% 31.70% 24.50% χ2= 1.35 n.s. Victim of intra-family violence 16.70% 21.20% 12.30% χ2= 2.99 n.s. Sexual harassment or abuse 6.70% 8.70% 4.70% χ2= 1.31 n.s. Notes: n.s. = non-significant; * p< 0.05; ** p< 0.01; IG = intervention group; CG = Control group; 1Cramer’s V in brackets. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1867 7 of 19 2.3. Measures Sociodemographic profile: This questionnaire was developed ad hoc by the researchers to collect from adolescents’, sociodemographic information on individual variables and family characteristics through six items: sex, age, academic year, family structure, primary caregiver at home, and number of family members. Stressful life events Inventory [ 60 ]: An adaptation of the Spanish questionnaire on stressful life events was used to assess psychosocial stress profiles [ 60 ]. Eight stressful life events were intentionally selected for this project: family-related stressful events (parents’ divorce, chronic parental conflict, parent’s new partner, severe financial problems, and parent’s mental or physical illness); and individual stressful events (peer victimization, intra-family violence, sexual harassment or abuse). A 5-year period was considered for the occurrence of the stressors, rated in a dichotomist scale (0 = no, 1 = yes). Emotional Quotient Inventory—Youth Version [ 61 ]: This 60-item questionnaire measures five components of emotional intelligence: intrapersonal (e.g., “It’s easy to tell people how I feel”); interpersonal (e.g., “I know when people are upset, even when they say nothing”); adaptability (e.g., “I can understand hard questions”); stress management (e.g., “I get angry easily”); and general mood (e.g., “I am happy”). Adolescents were required to rate the degree to which each item was true for them on a 4-point scale (from 1 = Very seldom true or not true of me to 4 = Very often true of me or true of me). The reliability coefficients computed in this study were listed for each scale: intrapersonal ( αT1 = 0.61 and αT2 = 0.70), interpersonal ( αT1 = 0.77 and αT2 = 0.79), adaptability ( αT1 = 0.80 and αT2 = 0.85), stress management ( αT1 = 0.83 and αT2 = 0.82), and general mood (αT1 = 0.89 and αT2 = 0.86). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment [ 62 ]: The parent attachment scales of this measure were included in the present study, totaling 25 items related to communication (e.g., “My mother/father helps me to talk about my difficulties”); trust (e.g., “I feel my mother/father does a good job as my parent”); and alienation (e.g., “I feel angry with my mother/father”) between the adolescent and his/her primary caregiver. Each item was rated on a 5-point scale (from 1 = Almost never or never true to 5 = Almost always or always true). The reliability coefficients in this study were described as: communication ( αT1 = 0.83 and αT2 = 0.84), trust ( αT1 = 0.87 and αT2 = 0.86), and alienation ( αT1 = 0.61 and αT2 = 0.67). Aggression Questionnaire [ 63 ]: Two dimensions from the 29-item version, adapted by Santiesteban and Alvarado [ 64 ], were used in this study to assess anger (e.g., “I have trouble controlling my temper”), and hostility (e.g., “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back”). Each item was rated by the adolescents on a 5-point scale (from 1 = Extremely uncharacteristic of me to 5 = Extremely characteristic of me). The reliability coefficients founded in this study were αT1 = 0.64/αT2 = 0.69 for anger, and αT1 = 0.60/αT2 = 0.68 for hostility. 2.4. Procedure CWS practitioners referred the adolescents for SB-PFT, if they met the following criteria: (a) aged between 11 and 17 years; (b) problematic behaviors, such as frequent fights with peers, alcohol use, social conflict, or expulsion from school; (c) significant impairment in family relations and a family crisis situation; and (d) consent to multiple-family treatment from both the parents and adolescents. The CG comprised a comparable sample of adolescents with problematic behaviors identified by the schools, who met the following criteria: (a) aged between 11 and 17 years; (b) residing in the same priority areas where the intervention took place; and (c) not receiving any therapeutic treatment. The battery of questionnaires was administered by researchers at the CWS (IG) and at the schools (CG). For the IG, pretest was administered during the second SB-PFT session, and posttest took place during the last session, for those adolescents who attended at least three treatment sessions. For the CG, there was a 3-month interval between pretest and posttest assessment. All questionnaires were self-report and any doubts were clarified by the researchers. Assessment took between 20 and 45 min. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1867 8 of 19 All adolescent participation was voluntary, once an informed consent form in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki was signed. The researchers explained the aims of the project and assured participants that anonymity would be kept throughout. Ethics approval was obtained from the Andalusian Government (code 0985-M1-18). 2.5. Data Analyses Analyses were performed using SPSS v.23 software (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). The following statistical assumptions were checked, yielding satisfactory results: linearity, normality, homoscedasticity, absence of multicollinearity and singularity, and independence of residuals [ 65 ]. Two univariate outliers were detected through box-plot examination and removed from subsequent analyses [ 66 ]. Missing data at item level were examined via missing value analysis. Little’s MCAR test was used to check whether data was randomly distributed. Less than 5% of missing data were found per item, and less than 10% of items were missing per scale. Therefore, the SEM procedure was performed to impute data using the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm from SPSS. For inter-group comparisons, one-way ANOVAs for quantitative variables and chi-square tests for qualitative ones were performed. DMS was explored using one-way ANOVAs for paired comparisons when required. Repeated measures ANOVAs were used for longitudinal analyses, and the interaction effect time*group (IG vs. CG) was examined independently for each stress profile, as described below. The 95% confidence level was considered for the significance test. Partial eta squared and Cramer’s V were computed as effect-size indexes, respectively. Partial eta squared was deemed negligible if <0.01, small if >0.01 and <0.06, medium if >0.06 and <0.14, and large if >0.14. Cramer’s V was considered negligible if <0.10, small if >0.10 and <0.30, medium if >0.30 and <0.50, and large if >0.50 [67]. 3. Results 3.1. Psychosocial Adjustment of Adolescents with Problematic Behaviors According to Their Stress Profiles Differences in emotional intelligence, aggressive behavior, and parent attachment by stress profile were studied. The descriptive data, statistics, and effect sizes, for these analyses are shown in Table 2. Regarding emotional intelligence variables, significant differences with small-to-medium effect sizes were observed among the three stress profiles for intrapersonal intelligence, stress management, and general mood. Specifically, DMS analyses found significant differences between IFSP adolescents and LSP adolescents, for intrapersonal intelligence, stress management, and general mood. In addition, significant differences were observed between FSP adolescents and IFSP adolescents, for intrapersonal intelligence and general mood. IFSP adolescents obtained the lowest scores across all aforementioned comparisons. As for the aggressive behavior dimensions, significant differences with small-to-medium effect sizes were observed among the three risk stress profiles of adolescents, for both anger and hostility. DMS analyses showed that IFSP adolescents scored significantly higher in anger and hostility, compared to their LSP peers, and higher in hostility than the FSP adolescents. Regarding parent attachment, analyses revealed significant differences in the degree of communication, trust, and alienation, yielding small-to-medium effect sizes. Specifically, DSM analyses showed that LSP adolescents obtained better scores across all parent attachment dimensions, compared to both FSP and IFSP adolescents. FSP adolescents also scored higher in alienation than their IFSP peers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1867 9 of 19 Table 2. Emotional Intelligence, Aggressive Behavior, and Parent Attachment by Stress Profile. Variables LSP M(SD) FSP M(SD) IFSP M(SD)Differences F(η2partial)DMS Emotional intelligence Intrapersonal 2.59 (0.52) 2.61 (0.67) 2.34 (0.54) 4.14 * (0.04) LSP-IFSP * FSP-IFSP ** Interpersonal 3.30 (0.49) 3.24 (0.46) 3.26 (0.46) 0.22 n.s. - Adaptability 2.97 (0.62) 3.01 (0.51) 3.01 (0.55) 0.08 n.s. - Stress management 2.57 (0.49) 2.43 (0.63) 2.24 (0.65) 3.74 * (0.04) LSP-IFSP ** General mood 3.37 (0.56) 3.36 (0.48) 3.03 (0.59) 8.72 *** (0.09) LSP-IFSP ** FSP-IFSP *** Aggressive behavior Anger 2.80 (0.82) 3.09 (0.79) 3.26 (0.85) 3.90 * (0.04) LSP-IFSP ** Hostility 2.42 (0.71) 2.59 (0.61) 3.01 (0.72) 11.37 *** (0.11) LSP-IFSP *** FSP-IFSP *** Parent attachment Communication 4.02 (0.72) 3.61 (0.93) 3.53 (0.99) 3.72 * (0.04) LSP-FSP * LSP-IFSP ** Trust 4.19 (0.50) 3.80 (0.83) 3.55 (1.00) 6.89 *** (0.07) LSP-FSP * LSP-IFSP *** Alienation 2.05 (0.78) 2.38 (0.82) 2.69 (0.72) 8.36 *** (0.08) LSP-FSP * LSP-IFSP *** FSP-IFSP * Notes: n.s. = non-significant; * p< 0.05; ** p< 0.01; *** p< 0.001; LSP = low stress profile; FSP = family stress profile; IFSP = individual and family stress profile. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1867 16 of 19 de intervenciones psicoeducativas con familias en situación de riesgo psicosocial”, and Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, under research grant FPU Program-3113. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of PONTE Association and ESAFAM Association. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Susman, E.J.; Dorn, L.D. Puberty: Its role in development. In Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, 3rd ed.; Lerner, R.M., Steinberg, L., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; Volume 1, pp. 116–151. 2. Grant, K.E.; Compas, B.E.; Stuhlmacher, A.F.; Thurm, A.E.; McMahon, S.D.; Halpert, J.A. Stressors and Child and Adolescent Psychopathology: Moving from Markers to Mechanisms of Risk. Psychol. Bull. 2003 , 129, 447–466. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. Lazarus, R.S.; Folkman, S. Stress, Appraisal and Coping; Springer: New York, NJ, USA, 1984. 4. Grant, K.E.; Compas, B.E.; Thurm, A.E.; McMahon, S.D.; Gipson, P.Y. Stressors and Child and Adolescent Psychopathology: Measurement Issues and Prospective Effects. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 2004 , 33, 412–425. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. Sanders, J.; Munford, R.; Boden, J. The Impact of the Social Context on Externalizing Risks—Implications for the Delivery of Programs to Vulnerable Youth. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2018,85, 107–116. [CrossRef] 6. Roberts, Y.H.; English, D.; Thompson, R.; White, C.R. The Impact of Childhood Stressful Life Events on Health and Behavior in At-Risk Youth. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2018,85, 117–126. [CrossRef] 7. Weaver, J.M.; Schofield, T.J. Mediation and Moderation of Divorce Effects on Children’s Behavior Problems. J. Fam. Psychol. 2015,29, 39–48. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 8. Petersen, I.T.; Bates, J.E.; Dodge, K.A.; Lansford, J.E.; Pettit, G.S. Describing and Predicting Developmental Profiles of Externalizing Problems from Childhood to Adulthood. Dev. Psychopathol. 2015 ,27, 791–818. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 9. Conger, R.D.; Conger, K.J.; Martin, M.J. Socioeconomic Status, Family Processes, and Individual Development. J. Marriage Fam. 2010,72, 685–704. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 10. Ngo, H.M.; Le, T.N. Stressful Life Events, Culture, and Violence. J. Immigr. Minor. Health 2007 ,9, 75–84. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 11. Yue, L.; Dajun, Z.; Yinghao, L.; Tianquiang, H. Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Life Events and Depression in Adolescents. J. Pediatr. Care 2016,2, 1. [CrossRef] 12. Baker, C.K.; Hishinuma, E.S.; Chang, J.Y.; Nixon, D.C. The Relationship among Exposure to Stressful Life Events, Drug Use, and Violence Perpetration in a Sample of Native Hawaiian, Samoan, and Filipino Adolescents. J. Interpers. Violence 2010,25, 379–399. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 13. Pereda, N.; Guilera, G.; Abad, J. Victimization and Polyvictimization of Spanish Children and Youth: Results from a Community Sample. Child Abus. Negl. 2014,38, 640–649. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. Turner, H.A.; Finkelhor, D.; Hamby, S.L.; Shattuck, A.; Ormrod, R.K. Specifying Type and Location of Peer Victimization in a National Sample of Children and Youth. J. Youth Adolesc. 2011 ,40, 1052–1067. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 15. Fitzpatrick, S.; Bussey, K. The Development of the Social Bullying Involvement Scales. Aggress. Behav. 2011 , 37, 177–192. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 16. Hawker, D.S.J.; Boulton, M.J. Twenty Years’ Research on Peer Victimization and Psychosocial Maladjustment: A Meta-Analytic Review of Cross-Sectional Studies. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2000 ,41, 441–455. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 17. Stadler, C.; Feifel, J.; Rohrmann, S.; Vermeiren, R.; Poustka, F. Peer-Victimization and Mental Health Problems in Adolescents: Are Parental and School Support Protective? Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 2010 ,41, 371–386. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 18. Troop-Gordon, W.; Ladd, G.W. Trajectories of Peer Victimization and Perceptions of the Self and Schoolmates: Precursors to Internalizing and Externalizing Problems. Child Dev. 2005 ,76, 1072–1091. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 19. Serafini, G.; Pompili, M.; Borgwardt, S.; Houenou, J.; Geoffroy, P.A.; Jardri, R.; Girardi, P.; Amore, M. Brain Changes in Early-onset Bipolar and Unipolar Depressive Disorders: A Systematic Review in Children and Adolescents. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2014,23, 1023–1041. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1867 17 of 19 20. Bourassa, C. Co-Occurrence of Interparental Violence and Child Physical Abuse and It’s Effect on the Adolescents’ Behavior. J. Fam. Viol. 2007,22, 691–701. [CrossRef] 21. Ho, J. Community violence exposure of Southeast Asian American adolescents. J. Interpers. Violence 2008 , 23, 136–146. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 22. Tocker, L.; Ben-Amitay, G.; Horesh-Reinman, N.; Lask, M.; Toren, P. Predictors of Clinical Outcomes in Sexually Abused Adolescents. J. Child Sex. Abus. 2017,26, 487–505. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 23. Giroux, M.E.; Chong, K.; Coburn, P.I.; Connolly, D.A. Differences in Child Sexual Abuse Cases Involving Child versus Adolescent Complainants. Child Abus. Negl. 2018,79, 224–233. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 24. McCuish, E.C.; Cale, J.; Corrado, R.R. Abuse Experiences of Family Members, Child Maltreatment, and the Development of Sex Offending among Incarcerated Adolescent Males: Differences Between Adolescent Sex Offenders and Adolescent Non-Sex Offenders. Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Criminol. 2017 ,61, 127–149. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 25. Agnew, R. Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency. Criminology 1992 ,30, 47–87. [CrossRef] 26. Berkowitz, L. Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis: Examination and Reformulation. Psychol. Bull. 1989 , 106, 59–73. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 27. Finkel, E.J. The I 3 Model: Metatheory, theory and evidence. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Olson, J.M., Zanna, M.P., Eds.; ElServier: San Diego, CA, USA, 2014; Volume 49, pp. 1–104. 28. Slotter, E.B.; Finkel, E.J. I 3 Theory: Instigating, impelling, and inhibiting factors in aggression. In Human Aggression and Violence: Causes, Manifestations, and Consequences; Shaver, P.R., Mikulincer, M., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; pp. 35–52. 29. Grant, K.E.; Compas, B.E.; Thurm, A.E.; McMahon, S.D.; Gipson, P.Y.; Campbell, A.J.; Krochock, K.; Westerholm, R.I. Stressors and Child and Adolescent Psychopathology: Evidence of Moderating and Mediating Effects. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2006,26, 257–283. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 30. Rutter, M. Resilience: Some Conceptual Considerations. J. Adolesc. Health 1993,14, 626–631. [CrossRef] 31. Cejudo, J.; Rodrigo-Ruiz, D.; López-Delgado, M.; Losada, L. Emotional Intelligence and Its Relationship with Levels of Social Anxiety and Stress in Adolescents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018 ,15, 1073. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 32. Krishnakumar, A.; Buehler, C. Interparental Conflict and Parenting Behaviors: A Meta-analytic Review. Fam. Relat. 2000,49, 25–44. [CrossRef] 33. Otis, K.L.; Huebner, E.S.; Hills, K.J. Origins of Early Adolescents’ Hope: Personality, Parental Attachment, and Stressful Life Events. Can. J. Sch. Psychol. 2016,31, 102–121. [CrossRef] 34. Lippold, M.A.; Davis, K.D.; McHale, S.M.; Buxton, O.M.; Almeida, D.M. Daily Stressor Reactivity during Adolescence: The Buffering Role of Parental Warmth. Health Psychol. 2016 ,35, 1027–1035. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 35. Morris, A.S.; Silk, J.S.; Steinberg, L.; Myers, S.S.; Robinson, L.R. The Role of the Family Context in the Development of Emotion regulation. Soc. Dev. 2007,16, 361–388. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 36. Li, D.; Zhang, W.; Wang, Y. Parental Behavioral Control, Psychological Control and Chinese Adolescents’ Peer Victimization: The Mediating Role of Self-Control. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2015,24, 628–637. [CrossRef] 37. Rasalingam, A.; Clench-Aas, J.; Raanaas, R.K. Peer Victimization and Related Mental Health Problems in Early Adolescence: The Mediating Role of Parental and Peer Support. J. Early Adolesc. 2017 ,37, 1142–1162. [CrossRef] 38. Abdollahi, A.; Carlbring, P.; Khanbani, M.; Ghahfarokhi, S.A. Emotional Intelligence Moderates Perceived Stress and Suicidal Ideation Among Depressed Adolescent Inpatients. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016 , 102, 223–228. [CrossRef] 39. Villanueva, L.; Montoya-Castilla, I.; Prado-Gascó, V. The Importance of Trait Emotional Intelligence and Feelings in the Prediction of Perceived and Biological Stress in Adolescents: Hierarchical Regressions and fsQCA Models. Stress 2017,20, 355–362. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 40. Extremera, N.; Durán, A.; Rey, L. Perceived Emotional Intelligence and Dispositional Optimism-Pessimism: Analyzing Their Role in Predicting Psychological Adjustment Among Adolescents. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2007,42, 1069–1079. [CrossRef] Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1867 18 of 19 41. Hsieh, Y.-P.; Wei, H.-S.; Hwa, H.-L.; Shen, A.C.-T.; Feng, J.-Y.; Huang, C.-Y. The Effects of Peer Victimization on Children’s Internet Addiction and Psychological Distress: The Moderating Roles of Emotional and Social Intelligence. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2018. [CrossRef] 42. Timmermans, M.; van Lier, P.A.C.; Koot, H.M. The Role of Stressful Events in the Development of Behavioural and Emotional Problems from Early Childhood to Late Adolescence. Psychol. Med. 2010 ,40, 1659–1668. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 43. Alexander, J.F.; Waldron, H.B.; Robbins, M.S.; Neeb, A.A. Functional Family Therapy for Adolescent Behavior Problems; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. 44. Sexton, T. Functional Family Therapy in Clinical Practice: An Evidence-based Treatment Model for Working with Troubled Adolescents; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011. 45. Andretta, J.R.; McKay, M.T.; Harvey, S.A.; Perry, J.L. Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment-Revised Scores in Adolescents: A Psychometric and Person-Oriented Study. Fam. Relat. 2017 ,66, 527–540. [CrossRef] 46. Berry, M.; McLean, S. Family Preservation. In Child Welfare for the Twenty-First Century. A Handbook of Practices, Policies, and Programs, 2nd ed.; Mallon, G.P., Hess, P.M., Eds.; Colombia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 270–287. 47. Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development. Available online: https://www.blueprintsprograms.org/ (accessed on 4 July 2018). 48. Henggeler, S.W.; Schoenwald, S.K.; Bordin, C.M.; Rowland, M.D.; Cunningham, P.B. Multisystemic Therapy for Antisocial Behavior in Children and Adolescents, 2nd ed.; Guilford: New York, NY, USA, 2009. 49. Robbins, M.S.; Alexander, J.F.; Turner, C.W.; Hollimon, A. Evolution of Functional Family Therapy as an Evidence-Based Practice for Adolescents with Disruptive Behavior Problems. Fam. Process 2016 ,55, 543–557. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 50. Xuan, J.; Restrepo, M.L. Efficacy of Multisystemic Therapy in Youths Aged 10–17 with Severe Antisocial Behaviour and Emotional Disorders: Systemic Review. Lond. J. Prim. Care 2017,9, 95–103. 51. Lorence, B.; Mora-Díaz, M.; Maya, J. Description and Analysis of the Quality of Programs for the Treatment of Antisocial Behavior in the City of Huelva. J. Res. Soc. Ped. 2018,32, 109–121. 52. Maya, J.; Jiménez, L.; Lorence, B.; del Moral, G.; Hidalgo, V. Scene-Based Psychodramatic Family Therapy with Troubled Adolescents and Parents. A Pilot Study. Fam. Process. in press. 53. Gutiérrez, J.A. Intervención Comunitaria desde el Enfoque Psicoescénico. Mosaico 2015,60, 86–94. 54. Minuchin, S.; Fishman, H.C. Family Therapy Techniques; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, UK, 1981. 55. Cruz, A.; Sales, C.M.D.; Alves, P.; Moita, G. The Core Techniques of Morenian Psychodrama: A Systematic Review of Literature. Front. Psychol. 2018,9, 1263. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 56. Keiley, M.K.; Zaremba-Morgan, A.; Datubo-Brown, C.; Pyle, R.; Cox, M. Multiple-family Group Intervention for Incarcerated Male Adolescents Who Sexually Offend and Their Families: Change in Maladaptive Emotion Regulation Predicts Adaptive Change in Adolescent Behaviors. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 2015 ,41, 324–339. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 57. Yalom, I.D.; Leszcz, M. The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy, 5th ed.; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2005. 58. Kellermann, P.F. The Place of Catharsis in Psychodrama. J. Group Psychother. Psychodrama Sociom. 1984 , 37, 1–13. 59. Jonson-Reid, M. Child Welfare Services and Delinquency: The Need to Know More. Child Welf. 2004 , 83, 157–173. 60. Jiménez, L.; Menéndez, S.; Hidalgo, M.V. An Analysis of Stressful Life Events during Adolescence. Psychol. Spain 2009,13, 1–8. 61. Bar-On, R.; Parker, J.D.A. The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth Version (EQ-i:YV): Technical Manual; Multi-Health Systems: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2006. 62. Armsden, G.C.; Greenberg, M.T. The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment: Individual Differences and Their Relationship to Psychological Well-being in Adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 1987 ,16, 427–454. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 63. Buss, A.H.; Perry, M. The Aggression Questionnaire. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1992,63, 452–459. [CrossRef] 64. Santisteban, C.; Alvarado, J.M. The Aggression Questionnaire for Spanish Preadolescents and Adolescents: AQ-PA. Span. J. Psychol. 2009,12, 320–326. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1867 19 of 19 65. Bonate, P.L. Analysis of Pretest-Posttest Designs; Chapman and Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000; ISBN 9781584881735. 66. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed.; Pearson Education: Boston, MA, USA, 2007. 67. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988. 68. Hidalgo, V.; Pérez-Padilla, J.; Sánchez, J.; Ayala-Nunes, L.; Maya, J.; Grimaldi, V.; Menéndez, S. An Analysis of Different Resources and Programmes Supporting At-Risk Families in Spain. Early Child Dev. Care 2018 . [CrossRef] 69. Flay, B.R.; Biglan, A.; Boruch, R.F.; Castro, F.G.; Gottfredson, D.; Kellam, S.; Mo´scicki, E.K.; Schinke, S.; Valentine, J.C.; Ji, P. Standards of Evidence: Criteria for Efficacy, Effectiveness and Dissemination. Prev. Sci. 2005,6, 151–175. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 70. Gottfredson, D.C.; Cook, T.D.; Gardner, F.E.; Gorman-Smith, D.; Howe, G.W.; Sandler, I.N.; Zafft, K.M. Standards of evidence for efficacy, effectiveness, and scale-up research in prevention science: Next generation. Prev. Sci. 2015,16, 893–926. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 71. Friedlander, M.L.; Escudero, V.; Heatherington, L.; Diamond, G.M. Alliance in Couple and Family Therapy. Psychotherapy 2011,48, 25–33. [CrossRef] [PubMed] © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).