Taussig 2010.

Methods	Stratified randomised trial of combined skills group training and individual mentoring vs control
Participants	Included (n = 156) Children 9 to 11 years of age who had been placed in foster care by court order because of maltreatment within the preceding year; currently resided within 35 minutes' drive to skills group sites; had lived with their current caregiver ≥ 3 weeks; demonstrated adequate proficiency in English Excluded None reported Setting Denver metropolitan area, 2002 to 2009
Interventions	Combined skills group training and individual mentoring (n = 77) Consisted of a manualised skills group and 30 weeks of 1‐on‐1 mentoring by graduate students in social work for each child. The skills group, which included 8 to 10 children and 2 facilitators, met for 1.5 hours over 30 weeks. Groups combined CBT skills with materials covering emotion recognition, perspective taking, problem solving, anger management, cultural identity, change and loss, healthy relationships, peer pressure, abuse prevention and future orientation. Mentors spent 2 to 4 hours a week with each child. The purpose of mentoring was to create empowering relationships with children, provide positive role models, ensure that children received appropriate services and support, help children generalise skills and promote a positive future orientation. Children attended a mean of 25.0 group sessions and 26.7 mentoring sessions Control (n = 79) Received assessment only Therapists The 2 facilitators were licenced clinicians and graduate student trainees. Mentors were graduate students in social work who received weekly individual and group supervision
Outcomes	PTSD symptoms Scale: Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children Rater: child Quality of life Scale: Life Satisfaction Survey Rater: child When Post therapy and at 6 months
Notes	SDs calculated from SEs
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomisation was stratified by gender and county, followed by 'manually randomized, by cohort, in a single block'. No other details were provided. When multiple members of a sibling group were eligible, 1 sibling was randomly selected to participate in the randomised controlled trial
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants (performance bias	High risk	Participants probably knew whether they were in the active or control group
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	'Interviewers were masked to participant group', but all outcomes were self reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Post‐therapy loss to follow‐up: 9%; loss to follow‐up at 6 months: 7%
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes appear to have been reported
Other bias	Unclear risk	IQ, coping and social support scores were higher in the intervention group.  Also, participants in the intervention group were more likely to have undergone physical abuse and maternal neglect and to have a mother with a criminal history