Table 1.

Applications and Implementations of Non Violent Resistance in Various Settings and Challenges: Results from Clinical Trials

	Population/sample	Age range	Methodology	Main findings	Treatment modality
Weinblatt & Omer, (2008)	Youth with behavioral problems. N = 41; 68% males.	4–17	Randomized waitlist-controlled trial.	Reduced maternal helplessness. Externalizing symptoms significantly reduced in the treatment group.	Five weekly individual sessions + telephone support.
Oleffs et al. (2009)	Youth with behavioral problems. N = 52; 66% males.	11–18	Aggregate data from sites that compared NVR to waitlist or active control (Triple P).	Significant improvement in externalizing symptoms and parental coping in NVR treatment groups. Improved parental depression and helplessness in both NVR and active comparison treatment.	Six individual weekly sessions (6–8 sessions in Triple P).
Lebowitz et al. (2012)	Adult children highly dependent on parents with extreme demands for services. N = 27; 85% males.	18–47	Open trial.	Significant reduction in parental provision of age-inappropriate services. Significantly improved functioning and increased employment of adult children.	15–25 individual sessions.
Lavi-Levavi et al. (2013)	Youth with behavioral problems. N = 46; 77% males.	Mean=12	Randomized waitlist-controlled trial.	Significantly reduced parental helplessness in the treatment group. Power struggles with the youth were also reduced and parents reported fewer negative feelings toward the youth following treatment.	4–10 weekly individual sessions+ telephone support.
Lebowitz (2013)	Treatment refusing youth with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). N = 6; 75% males.	10–13	Open trial.	Reduced OCD symptoms, family accommodation and coercive disruptive behaviors following treatment.	Ten weekly individual sessions.
Goddard et al. (2009)	Inpatient psychiatric units. Four child and two adolescent units.	Child<13 Adol.>12	Open trial of NVR implementation in the units.	Use of seclusion and restraint was significantly reduced on all but one unit. Staff feelings of confidence and team work increased. Staff on adolescent units reported decreased sense of helplessness.	NVR was implemented on the units for 1 year.
Lebowitz et al. (2014)	Treatment refractory/Treatment refusing youth with anxiety disorders. N = 10; 50% males.	9–13	Open trial.	Reduced anxiety and family accommodation after treatment. Increased youth motivation for individual treatment.	10–12 weekly individual sessions.
Newman et al. (2014)	Youth with behavioral problems. N = 24	8–17	Open trial.	Reduced youth behavioral problems and improved functioning following treatment.	12 weekly group sessions.
Omer & Dolberger, (2015)	Youth and young adults with threats of suicidality.		Pilot implementation	Reports of reduced suicidality. No systematic comparisons available.	10–25 weekly individual sessions.
Shimshoni et al. (2015)	New young drivers. N = 217	17–22	Randomized controlled trial.	At risk youth showed better driving behaviors in the NVR-based training group.	Six months of feedback on driving behavior ± 90 min NVR-based training and access to telephone support.
van Holen et al. (2015)	Children in foster care with externalizing problems. N = 62; 52% boys.	Mean=12	Randomized controlled trial of NVR or TAU.	NVR treatment associated with more child-monitoring and more use of social support than TAU. No significant differences in child behavior outcomes.	10 weekly in-home sessions + telephone support
Omer et al. (2006)	Students in one middle school and one high school. N = 800	12–7	Open trial	Reduced youth behavioral problems in school. Improved staff coping with behavioral problems.	Training and support for teachers and school staff + parent outreach over one school year.
Golan, Shilo & Omer, (2016)	Young adult with high functioning autism. N = 4; aged	20–26	Open trial.	Reduced parental distress and increased hopefulness.	10 weekly individual sessions + telephone support

Note. NVR = Non-Violent Resistance; TAU = Treatment as usual.