Intensive behavioral treatment delivered in a summer camp setting, with rewards and punishment equally emphasized.

Counselors recorded the total number of minutes children were in Time Out due to intentional aggression, intentional destruction of property, or repeated noncompliance. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.

Counselors recorded the total number of Time Outs children served due to intentional aggression, intentional destruction of property, or repeated noncompliance. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.

Counselors recorded the total number of minutes children had to be physically managed due to behavior dangerous to themselves or others. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.

At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's overall inattentive-overactive-impulsive behavior during the week. Rating were completed using Likert scales that ranged from 0 ("not at all") to 3 ("very much"). Items were summed to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 0 to 15.

At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's overall oppositional-defiant behavior during the week. Rating were completed using Likert scales that ranged from 0 ("not at all") to 3 ("very much"). Items were summed to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 0 to 15.

At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's overall oppositional-defiant behavior during the week. Rating were completed using Likert scales that ranged from 0 ("not at all") to 3 ("very much"). Items were summed to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 0 to 15.

At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's serious conduct problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 ("no problem") to 7 ("serious problem"). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems.

At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's serious conduct problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 ("no problem") to 7 ("serious problem"). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems.

At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's rule following problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 ("no problem") to 7 ("serious problem"). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems.

At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's rule following problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 ("no problem") to 7 ("serious problem"). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems.

At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's overall problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 ("no problem") to 7 ("serious problem"). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems.

At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's overall problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 ("no problem") to 7 ("serious problem"). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems.

At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: "How much did your child benefit from this treatment?". This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 ("not at all") to 3 ("very much").

At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: "How much did you benefit from this treatment?". This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 ("not at all") to 3 ("very much").

At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: "How much did your child this treatment?". This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 ("not at all") to 3 ("very much").

At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: "Would you send your child to this treatment if you could do it over again?". This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 ("no definitely") to 4 ("yes definitely").

At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: "Would you recommend this treatment to other parents?". This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 ("no definitely") to 4 ("yes definitely").

At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: "Please rate your overall satisfaction with this treatment as compared with other treatment services your child has received". This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 ("much less satisfied with this program") to 4 ("much more satisfied with this program").

At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: "Please rate how effective this treatment was in changing your child as compared with other treatment services your child has received". This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 ("this treatment much less effective") to 4 ("this treatment much more effective").

At end end of both treatment blocks, counselors sorted children into one of four treatment response groups: (1) responded best to standard behavior therapy; (2) responded best to modified behavior therapy; (3) responded well to both treatments; (4) did not respond to either treatment

At end end of both treatment blocks, parents selected which treatment they though was best for their child - standard behavioral treatment or modified behavioral treatment

At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's overall inattentive-overactive-impulsive behavior during the week. Rating were completed using Likert scales that ranged from 0 ("not at all") to 3 ("very much"). Items were summed to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 0 to 15.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

Counselors recorded each instance of negative verbalizations, defined as verbal abuse to staff, teasing peers, and swearing. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

Counselors recorded each instance of complaining. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

Counselors recorded each instance of interrupting. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

Counselors recorded each instance of noncompliance. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

Counselors recorded each instance of rule violations. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

Counselors recorded each instance of positive behavior with peers, defined as helping, sharing and ignoring teasing. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

Counselors recorded the total number of minutes children were in Time Out due to intentional aggression, intentional destruction of property, or repeated noncompliance. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

Counselors recorded the total number of Time Outs children served due to intentional aggression, intentional destruction of property, or repeated noncompliance. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

Counselors recorded the total number of minutes children had to be physically managed due to behavior dangerous to themselves or others. The average number per day was computed for each week of treatment.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's overall inattentive-overactive-impulsive behavior during the week. Rating were completed using Likert scales that ranged from 0 ("not at all") to 3 ("very much"). Items were summed to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 0 to 15.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's overall oppositional-defiant behavior during the week. Rating were completed using Likert scales that ranged from 0 ("not at all") to 3 ("very much"). Items were summed to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 0 to 15.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's overall oppositional-defiant behavior during the week. Rating were completed using Likert scales that ranged from 0 ("not at all") to 3 ("very much"). Items were summed to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 0 to 15.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's serious conduct problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 ("no problem") to 7 ("serious problem"). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's serious conduct problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 ("no problem") to 7 ("serious problem"). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's rule following problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 ("no problem") to 7 ("serious problem"). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's rule following problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 ("no problem") to 7 ("serious problem"). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

At the end of each treatment week counselors rated each child's overall problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 ("no problem") to 7 ("serious problem"). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

At the end of each treatment week parents rated each child's overall problems during the week. Rating were completed on the Weekly Problem Rating Form (Haas et al, 2011) using Likert scales that ranged from 1 ("no problem") to 7 ("serious problem"). Items were averaged to compute a scale score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7, with high scores indicating more serious problems.

Three children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria).

At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: "How much did your child benefit from this treatment?". This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 ("not at all") to 3 ("very much").

Four children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria). One was excluded because parent did not return completed ratings.

At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: "How much did you benefit from this treatment?". This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 ("not at all") to 3 ("very much").

Four children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria). One was excluded because parent did not return completed ratings.

At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: "How much did your child this treatment?". This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 ("not at all") to 3 ("very much").

Four children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria). One was excluded because parent did not return completed ratings.

At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: "Would you send your child to this treatment if you could do it over again?". This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 ("no definitely") to 4 ("yes definitely").

Four children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria). One was excluded because parent did not return completed ratings.

At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: "Would you recommend this treatment to other parents?". This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 ("no definitely") to 4 ("yes definitely").

Four children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria). One was excluded because parent did not return completed ratings.

At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: "Please rate your overall satisfaction with this treatment as compared with other treatment services your child has received". This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 ("much less satisfied with this program") to 4 ("much more satisfied with this program").

Four children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria). One was excluded because parent did not return completed ratings.

At the end of each treatment block parents rated their overall satisfaction with the treatment provided to their child. This item was phrased as follows: "Please rate how effective this treatment was in changing your child as compared with other treatment services your child has received". This item was rated using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 ("this treatment much less effective") to 4 ("this treatment much more effective").

Four children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria). One was excluded because parent did not return completed ratings.

At end end of both treatment blocks, counselors sorted children into one of four treatment response groups: (1) responded best to standard behavior therapy; (2) responded best to modified behavior therapy; (3) responded well to both treatments; (4) did not respond to either treatment

Four children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria). One excluded because only completed one block of treatment.

At end end of both treatment blocks, parents selected which treatment they though was best for their child - standard behavioral treatment or modified behavioral treatment

Four children excluded from analyses; two excluded because of medication changes during treatment. One excluded because he was mistakenly enrolled (after collecting treatment data we learned that he did not meet all inclusion criteria). One excluded because only completed one block of treatment.

Summer treatment program: Intensive behavioral treatment delivered in a summer camp setting. During the first four weeks, participants received standard behavior treatment (SBT) that balanced reward and punishment. During the last four weeks of treatment, participants received modified behavioral treatment (MBT) that emphasized rewards and de-emphasized punishments.