collaborative problem solving the child center

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 11 January 2023

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature

• Enwei Xu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6424-8169 1 ,
• Wei Wang 1 &
• Qingxia Wang 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  16 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

18k Accesses

21 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

Collaborative problem-solving has been widely embraced in the classroom instruction of critical thinking, which is regarded as the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education as well as a key competence for learners in the 21st century. However, the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking remains uncertain. This current research presents the major findings of a meta-analysis of 36 pieces of the literature revealed in worldwide educational periodicals during the 21st century to identify the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and to determine, based on evidence, whether and to what extent collaborative problem solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. The findings show that (1) collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster students’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]); (2) in respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem solving can significantly and successfully enhance students’ attitudinal tendencies (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI[0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI[0.58, 0.82]); and (3) the teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01) all have an impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. On the basis of these results, recommendations are made for further study and instruction to better support students’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Similar content being viewed by others

A meta-analysis of the effects of design thinking on student learning

Fostering twenty-first century skills among primary school students through math project-based learning

A meta-analysis to gauge the impact of pedagogies employed in mixed-ability high school biology classrooms

Introduction.

Although critical thinking has a long history in research, the concept of critical thinking, which is regarded as an essential competence for learners in the 21st century, has recently attracted more attention from researchers and teaching practitioners (National Research Council, 2012 ). Critical thinking should be the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education (Peng and Deng, 2017 ) because students with critical thinking can not only understand the meaning of knowledge but also effectively solve practical problems in real life even after knowledge is forgotten (Kek and Huijser, 2011 ). The definition of critical thinking is not universal (Ennis, 1989 ; Castle, 2009 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). In general, the definition of critical thinking is a self-aware and self-regulated thought process (Facione, 1990 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). It refers to the cognitive skills needed to interpret, analyze, synthesize, reason, and evaluate information as well as the attitudinal tendency to apply these abilities (Halpern, 2001 ). The view that critical thinking can be taught and learned through curriculum teaching has been widely supported by many researchers (e.g., Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), leading to educators’ efforts to foster it among students. In the field of teaching practice, there are three types of courses for teaching critical thinking (Ennis, 1989 ). The first is an independent curriculum in which critical thinking is taught and cultivated without involving the knowledge of specific disciplines; the second is an integrated curriculum in which critical thinking is integrated into the teaching of other disciplines as a clear teaching goal; and the third is a mixed curriculum in which critical thinking is taught in parallel to the teaching of other disciplines for mixed teaching training. Furthermore, numerous measuring tools have been developed by researchers and educators to measure critical thinking in the context of teaching practice. These include standardized measurement tools, such as WGCTA, CCTST, CCTT, and CCTDI, which have been verified by repeated experiments and are considered effective and reliable by international scholars (Facione and Facione, 1992 ). In short, descriptions of critical thinking, including its two dimensions of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, different types of teaching courses, and standardized measurement tools provide a complex normative framework for understanding, teaching, and evaluating critical thinking.

Cultivating critical thinking in curriculum teaching can start with a problem, and one of the most popular critical thinking instructional approaches is problem-based learning (Liu et al., 2020 ). Duch et al. ( 2001 ) noted that problem-based learning in group collaboration is progressive active learning, which can improve students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Collaborative problem-solving is the organic integration of collaborative learning and problem-based learning, which takes learners as the center of the learning process and uses problems with poor structure in real-world situations as the starting point for the learning process (Liang et al., 2017 ). Students learn the knowledge needed to solve problems in a collaborative group, reach a consensus on problems in the field, and form solutions through social cooperation methods, such as dialogue, interpretation, questioning, debate, negotiation, and reflection, thus promoting the development of learners’ domain knowledge and critical thinking (Cindy, 2004 ; Liang et al., 2017 ).

Collaborative problem-solving has been widely used in the teaching practice of critical thinking, and several studies have attempted to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature on critical thinking from various perspectives. However, little attention has been paid to the impact of collaborative problem-solving on critical thinking. Therefore, the best approach for developing and enhancing critical thinking throughout collaborative problem-solving is to examine how to implement critical thinking instruction; however, this issue is still unexplored, which means that many teachers are incapable of better instructing critical thinking (Leng and Lu, 2020 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). For example, Huber ( 2016 ) provided the meta-analysis findings of 71 publications on gaining critical thinking over various time frames in college with the aim of determining whether critical thinking was truly teachable. These authors found that learners significantly improve their critical thinking while in college and that critical thinking differs with factors such as teaching strategies, intervention duration, subject area, and teaching type. The usefulness of collaborative problem-solving in fostering students’ critical thinking, however, was not determined by this study, nor did it reveal whether there existed significant variations among the different elements. A meta-analysis of 31 pieces of educational literature was conducted by Liu et al. ( 2020 ) to assess the impact of problem-solving on college students’ critical thinking. These authors found that problem-solving could promote the development of critical thinking among college students and proposed establishing a reasonable group structure for problem-solving in a follow-up study to improve students’ critical thinking. Additionally, previous empirical studies have reached inconclusive and even contradictory conclusions about whether and to what extent collaborative problem-solving increases or decreases critical thinking levels. As an illustration, Yang et al. ( 2008 ) carried out an experiment on the integrated curriculum teaching of college students based on a web bulletin board with the goal of fostering participants’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These authors’ research revealed that through sharing, debating, examining, and reflecting on various experiences and ideas, collaborative problem-solving can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking in real-life problem situations. In contrast, collaborative problem-solving had a positive impact on learners’ interaction and could improve learning interest and motivation but could not significantly improve students’ critical thinking when compared to traditional classroom teaching, according to research by Naber and Wyatt ( 2014 ) and Sendag and Odabasi ( 2009 ) on undergraduate and high school students, respectively.

The above studies show that there is inconsistency regarding the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a thorough and trustworthy review to detect and decide whether and to what degree collaborative problem-solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. Meta-analysis is a quantitative analysis approach that is utilized to examine quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. This approach characterizes the effectiveness of its impact by averaging the effect sizes of numerous qualitative studies in an effort to reduce the uncertainty brought on by independent research and produce more conclusive findings (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ).

This paper used a meta-analytic approach and carried out a meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking in order to make a contribution to both research and practice. The following research questions were addressed by this meta-analysis:

What is the overall effect size of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills)?

How are the disparities between the study conclusions impacted by various moderating variables if the impacts of various experimental designs in the included studies are heterogeneous?

This research followed the strict procedures (e.g., database searching, identification, screening, eligibility, merging, duplicate removal, and analysis of included studies) of Cooper’s ( 2010 ) proposed meta-analysis approach for examining quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. The relevant empirical research that appeared in worldwide educational periodicals within the 21st century was subjected to this meta-analysis using Rev-Man 5.4. The consistency of the data extracted separately by two researchers was tested using Cohen’s kappa coefficient, and a publication bias test and a heterogeneity test were run on the sample data to ascertain the quality of this meta-analysis.

Data sources and search strategies

There were three stages to the data collection process for this meta-analysis, as shown in Fig. 1 , which shows the number of articles included and eliminated during the selection process based on the statement and study eligibility criteria.

This flowchart shows the number of records identified, included and excluded in the article.

First, the databases used to systematically search for relevant articles were the journal papers of the Web of Science Core Collection and the Chinese Core source journal, as well as the Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI) source journal papers included in CNKI. These databases were selected because they are credible platforms that are sources of scholarly and peer-reviewed information with advanced search tools and contain literature relevant to the subject of our topic from reliable researchers and experts. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the Web of Science was “TS = (((“critical thinking” or “ct” and “pretest” or “posttest”) or (“critical thinking” or “ct” and “control group” or “quasi experiment” or “experiment”)) and (“collaboration” or “collaborative learning” or “CSCL”) and (“problem solving” or “problem-based learning” or “PBL”))”. The research area was “Education Educational Research”, and the search period was “January 1, 2000, to December 30, 2021”. A total of 412 papers were obtained. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the CNKI was “SU = (‘critical thinking’*‘collaboration’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘collaborative learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘CSCL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem solving’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem-based learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘PBL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem oriented’) AND FT = (‘experiment’ + ‘quasi experiment’ + ‘pretest’ + ‘posttest’ + ‘empirical study’)” (translated into Chinese when searching). A total of 56 studies were found throughout the search period of “January 2000 to December 2021”. From the databases, all duplicates and retractions were eliminated before exporting the references into Endnote, a program for managing bibliographic references. In all, 466 studies were found.

Second, the studies that matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the meta-analysis were chosen by two researchers after they had reviewed the abstracts and titles of the gathered articles, yielding a total of 126 studies.

Third, two researchers thoroughly reviewed each included article’s whole text in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meanwhile, a snowball search was performed using the references and citations of the included articles to ensure complete coverage of the articles. Ultimately, 36 articles were kept.

Two researchers worked together to carry out this entire process, and a consensus rate of almost 94.7% was reached after discussion and negotiation to clarify any emerging differences.

Eligibility criteria

Since not all the retrieved studies matched the criteria for this meta-analysis, eligibility criteria for both inclusion and exclusion were developed as follows:

The publication language of the included studies was limited to English and Chinese, and the full text could be obtained. Articles that did not meet the publication language and articles not published between 2000 and 2021 were excluded.

The research design of the included studies must be empirical and quantitative studies that can assess the effect of collaborative problem-solving on the development of critical thinking. Articles that could not identify the causal mechanisms by which collaborative problem-solving affects critical thinking, such as review articles and theoretical articles, were excluded.

The research method of the included studies must feature a randomized control experiment or a quasi-experiment, or a natural experiment, which have a higher degree of internal validity with strong experimental designs and can all plausibly provide evidence that critical thinking and collaborative problem-solving are causally related. Articles with non-experimental research methods, such as purely correlational or observational studies, were excluded.

The participants of the included studies were only students in school, including K-12 students and college students. Articles in which the participants were non-school students, such as social workers or adult learners, were excluded.

The research results of the included studies must mention definite signs that may be utilized to gauge critical thinking’s impact (e.g., sample size, mean value, or standard deviation). Articles that lacked specific measurement indicators for critical thinking and could not calculate the effect size were excluded.

Data coding design

In order to perform a meta-analysis, it is necessary to collect the most important information from the articles, codify that information’s properties, and convert descriptive data into quantitative data. Therefore, this study designed a data coding template (see Table 1 ). Ultimately, 16 coding fields were retained.

The designed data-coding template consisted of three pieces of information. Basic information about the papers was included in the descriptive information: the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper.

The variable information for the experimental design had three variables: the independent variable (instruction method), the dependent variable (critical thinking), and the moderating variable (learning stage, teaching type, intervention duration, learning scaffold, group size, measuring tool, and subject area). Depending on the topic of this study, the intervention strategy, as the independent variable, was coded into collaborative and non-collaborative problem-solving. The dependent variable, critical thinking, was coded as a cognitive skill and an attitudinal tendency. And seven moderating variables were created by grouping and combining the experimental design variables discovered within the 36 studies (see Table 1 ), where learning stages were encoded as higher education, high school, middle school, and primary school or lower; teaching types were encoded as mixed courses, integrated courses, and independent courses; intervention durations were encoded as 0–1 weeks, 1–4 weeks, 4–12 weeks, and more than 12 weeks; group sizes were encoded as 2–3 persons, 4–6 persons, 7–10 persons, and more than 10 persons; learning scaffolds were encoded as teacher-supported learning scaffold, technique-supported learning scaffold, and resource-supported learning scaffold; measuring tools were encoded as standardized measurement tools (e.g., WGCTA, CCTT, CCTST, and CCTDI) and self-adapting measurement tools (e.g., modified or made by researchers); and subject areas were encoded according to the specific subjects used in the 36 included studies.

The data information contained three metrics for measuring critical thinking: sample size, average value, and standard deviation. It is vital to remember that studies with various experimental designs frequently adopt various formulas to determine the effect size. And this paper used Morris’ proposed standardized mean difference (SMD) calculation formula ( 2008 , p. 369; see Supplementary Table S3 ).

Procedure for extracting and coding data

According to the data coding template (see Table 1 ), the 36 papers’ information was retrieved by two researchers, who then entered them into Excel (see Supplementary Table S1 ). The results of each study were extracted separately in the data extraction procedure if an article contained numerous studies on critical thinking, or if a study assessed different critical thinking dimensions. For instance, Tiwari et al. ( 2010 ) used four time points, which were viewed as numerous different studies, to examine the outcomes of critical thinking, and Chen ( 2013 ) included the two outcome variables of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, which were regarded as two studies. After discussion and negotiation during data extraction, the two researchers’ consistency test coefficients were roughly 93.27%. Supplementary Table S2 details the key characteristics of the 36 included articles with 79 effect quantities, including descriptive information (e.g., the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper), variable information (e.g., independent variables, dependent variables, and moderating variables), and data information (e.g., mean values, standard deviations, and sample size). Following that, testing for publication bias and heterogeneity was done on the sample data using the Rev-Man 5.4 software, and then the test results were used to conduct a meta-analysis.

Publication bias test

When the sample of studies included in a meta-analysis does not accurately reflect the general status of research on the relevant subject, publication bias is said to be exhibited in this research. The reliability and accuracy of the meta-analysis may be impacted by publication bias. Due to this, the meta-analysis needs to check the sample data for publication bias (Stewart et al., 2006 ). A popular method to check for publication bias is the funnel plot; and it is unlikely that there will be publishing bias when the data are equally dispersed on either side of the average effect size and targeted within the higher region. The data are equally dispersed within the higher portion of the efficient zone, consistent with the funnel plot connected with this analysis (see Fig. 2 ), indicating that publication bias is unlikely in this situation.

This funnel plot shows the result of publication bias of 79 effect quantities across 36 studies.

Heterogeneity test

To select the appropriate effect models for the meta-analysis, one might use the results of a heterogeneity test on the data effect sizes. In a meta-analysis, it is common practice to gauge the degree of data heterogeneity using the I 2 value, and I 2  ≥ 50% is typically understood to denote medium-high heterogeneity, which calls for the adoption of a random effect model; if not, a fixed effect model ought to be applied (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ). The findings of the heterogeneity test in this paper (see Table 2 ) revealed that I 2 was 86% and displayed significant heterogeneity ( P  < 0.01). To ensure accuracy and reliability, the overall effect size ought to be calculated utilizing the random effect model.

The analysis of the overall effect size

This meta-analysis utilized a random effect model to examine 79 effect quantities from 36 studies after eliminating heterogeneity. In accordance with Cohen’s criterion (Cohen, 1992 ), it is abundantly clear from the analysis results, which are shown in the forest plot of the overall effect (see Fig. 3 ), that the cumulative impact size of cooperative problem-solving is 0.82, which is statistically significant ( z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]), and can encourage learners to practice critical thinking.

This forest plot shows the analysis result of the overall effect size across 36 studies.

In addition, this study examined two distinct dimensions of critical thinking to better understand the precise contributions that collaborative problem-solving makes to the growth of critical thinking. The findings (see Table 3 ) indicate that collaborative problem-solving improves cognitive skills (ES = 0.70) and attitudinal tendency (ES = 1.17), with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 7.95, P  < 0.01). Although collaborative problem-solving improves both dimensions of critical thinking, it is essential to point out that the improvements in students’ attitudinal tendency are much more pronounced and have a significant comprehensive effect (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]), whereas gains in learners’ cognitive skill are slightly improved and are just above average. (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).

The analysis of moderator effect size

The whole forest plot’s 79 effect quantities underwent a two-tailed test, which revealed significant heterogeneity ( I 2  = 86%, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01), indicating differences between various effect sizes that may have been influenced by moderating factors other than sampling error. Therefore, exploring possible moderating factors that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis, such as the learning stage, learning scaffold, teaching type, group size, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, in order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking. The findings (see Table 4 ) indicate that various moderating factors have advantageous effects on critical thinking. In this situation, the subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01), and teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05) are all significant moderators that can be applied to support the cultivation of critical thinking. However, since the learning stage and the measuring tools did not significantly differ among intergroup (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05, and chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05), we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These are the precise outcomes, as follows:

Various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively, without significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05). High school was first on the list of effect sizes (ES = 1.36, P  < 0.01), then higher education (ES = 0.78, P  < 0.01), and middle school (ES = 0.73, P  < 0.01). These results show that, despite the learning stage’s beneficial influence on cultivating learners’ critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is essential for cultivating critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Different teaching types had varying degrees of positive impact on critical thinking, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05). The effect size was ranked as follows: mixed courses (ES = 1.34, P  < 0.01), integrated courses (ES = 0.81, P  < 0.01), and independent courses (ES = 0.27, P  < 0.01). These results indicate that the most effective approach to cultivate critical thinking utilizing collaborative problem solving is through the teaching type of mixed courses.

Various intervention durations significantly improved critical thinking, and there were significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01). The effect sizes related to this variable showed a tendency to increase with longer intervention durations. The improvement in critical thinking reached a significant level (ES = 0.85, P  < 0.01) after more than 12 weeks of training. These findings indicate that the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated, with a longer intervention duration having a greater effect.

Different learning scaffolds influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01). The resource-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.69, P  < 0.01) acquired a medium-to-higher level of impact, the technique-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.63, P  < 0.01) also attained a medium-to-higher level of impact, and the teacher-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.92, P  < 0.01) displayed a high level of significant impact. These results show that the learning scaffold with teacher support has the greatest impact on cultivating critical thinking.

Various group sizes influenced critical thinking positively, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05). Critical thinking showed a general declining trend with increasing group size. The overall effect size of 2–3 people in this situation was the biggest (ES = 0.99, P  < 0.01), and when the group size was greater than 7 people, the improvement in critical thinking was at the lower-middle level (ES < 0.5, P  < 0.01). These results show that the impact on critical thinking is positively connected with group size, and as group size grows, so does the overall impact.

Various measuring tools influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05). In this situation, the self-adapting measurement tools obtained an upper-medium level of effect (ES = 0.78), whereas the complete effect size of the standardized measurement tools was the largest, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 0.84, P  < 0.01). These results show that, despite the beneficial influence of the measuring tool on cultivating critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

Different subject areas had a greater impact on critical thinking, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05). Mathematics had the greatest overall impact, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 1.68, P  < 0.01), followed by science (ES = 1.25, P  < 0.01) and medical science (ES = 0.87, P  < 0.01), both of which also achieved a significant level of effect. Programming technology was the least effective (ES = 0.39, P  < 0.01), only having a medium-low degree of effect compared to education (ES = 0.72, P  < 0.01) and other fields (such as language, art, and social sciences) (ES = 0.58, P  < 0.01). These results suggest that scientific fields (e.g., mathematics, science) may be the most effective subject areas for cultivating critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking

According to this meta-analysis, using collaborative problem-solving as an intervention strategy in critical thinking teaching has a considerable amount of impact on cultivating learners’ critical thinking as a whole and has a favorable promotional effect on the two dimensions of critical thinking. According to certain studies, collaborative problem solving, the most frequently used critical thinking teaching strategy in curriculum instruction can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking (e.g., Liang et al., 2017 ; Liu et al., 2020 ; Cindy, 2004 ). This meta-analysis provides convergent data support for the above research views. Thus, the findings of this meta-analysis not only effectively address the first research query regarding the overall effect of cultivating critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills) utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving, but also enhance our confidence in cultivating critical thinking by using collaborative problem-solving intervention approach in the context of classroom teaching.

Furthermore, the associated improvements in attitudinal tendency are much stronger, but the corresponding improvements in cognitive skill are only marginally better. According to certain studies, cognitive skill differs from the attitudinal tendency in classroom instruction; the cultivation and development of the former as a key ability is a process of gradual accumulation, while the latter as an attitude is affected by the context of the teaching situation (e.g., a novel and exciting teaching approach, challenging and rewarding tasks) (Halpern, 2001 ; Wei and Hong, 2022 ). Collaborative problem-solving as a teaching approach is exciting and interesting, as well as rewarding and challenging; because it takes the learners as the focus and examines problems with poor structure in real situations, and it can inspire students to fully realize their potential for problem-solving, which will significantly improve their attitudinal tendency toward solving problems (Liu et al., 2020 ). Similar to how collaborative problem-solving influences attitudinal tendency, attitudinal tendency impacts cognitive skill when attempting to solve a problem (Liu et al., 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ), and stronger attitudinal tendencies are associated with improved learning achievement and cognitive ability in students (Sison, 2008 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ). It can be seen that the two specific dimensions of critical thinking as well as critical thinking as a whole are affected by collaborative problem-solving, and this study illuminates the nuanced links between cognitive skills and attitudinal tendencies with regard to these two dimensions of critical thinking. To fully develop students’ capacity for critical thinking, future empirical research should pay closer attention to cognitive skills.

The moderating effects of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking

In order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking, exploring possible moderating effects that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis. The findings show that the moderating factors, such as the teaching type, learning stage, group size, learning scaffold, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, could all support the cultivation of collaborative problem-solving in critical thinking. Among them, the effect size differences between the learning stage and measuring tool are not significant, which does not explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

In terms of the learning stage, various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively without significant intergroup differences, indicating that we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking.

Although high education accounts for 70.89% of all empirical studies performed by researchers, high school may be the appropriate learning stage to foster students’ critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving since it has the largest overall effect size. This phenomenon may be related to student’s cognitive development, which needs to be further studied in follow-up research.

With regard to teaching type, mixed course teaching may be the best teaching method to cultivate students’ critical thinking. Relevant studies have shown that in the actual teaching process if students are trained in thinking methods alone, the methods they learn are isolated and divorced from subject knowledge, which is not conducive to their transfer of thinking methods; therefore, if students’ thinking is trained only in subject teaching without systematic method training, it is challenging to apply to real-world circumstances (Ruggiero, 2012 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Teaching critical thinking as mixed course teaching in parallel to other subject teachings can achieve the best effect on learners’ critical thinking, and explicit critical thinking instruction is more effective than less explicit critical thinking instruction (Bensley and Spero, 2014 ).

In terms of the intervention duration, with longer intervention times, the overall effect size shows an upward tendency. Thus, the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated. Critical thinking, as a key competency for students in the 21st century, is difficult to get a meaningful improvement in a brief intervention duration. Instead, it could be developed over a lengthy period of time through consistent teaching and the progressive accumulation of knowledge (Halpern, 2001 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Therefore, future empirical studies ought to take these restrictions into account throughout a longer period of critical thinking instruction.

With regard to group size, a group size of 2–3 persons has the highest effect size, and the comprehensive effect size decreases with increasing group size in general. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a group composed of two to four members is most appropriate for collaborative learning (Schellens and Valcke, 2006 ). However, the meta-analysis results also indicate that once the group size exceeds 7 people, small groups cannot produce better interaction and performance than large groups. This may be because the learning scaffolds of technique support, resource support, and teacher support improve the frequency and effectiveness of interaction among group members, and a collaborative group with more members may increase the diversity of views, which is helpful to cultivate critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

With regard to the learning scaffold, the three different kinds of learning scaffolds can all enhance critical thinking. Among them, the teacher-supported learning scaffold has the largest overall effect size, demonstrating the interdependence of effective learning scaffolds and collaborative problem-solving. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a successful strategy is to encourage learners to collaborate, come up with solutions, and develop critical thinking skills by using learning scaffolds (Reiser, 2004 ; Xu et al., 2022 ); learning scaffolds can lower task complexity and unpleasant feelings while also enticing students to engage in learning activities (Wood et al., 2006 ); learning scaffolds are designed to assist students in using learning approaches more successfully to adapt the collaborative problem-solving process, and the teacher-supported learning scaffolds have the greatest influence on critical thinking in this process because they are more targeted, informative, and timely (Xu et al., 2022 ).

With respect to the measuring tool, despite the fact that standardized measurement tools (such as the WGCTA, CCTT, and CCTST) have been acknowledged as trustworthy and effective by worldwide experts, only 54.43% of the research included in this meta-analysis adopted them for assessment, and the results indicated no intergroup differences. These results suggest that not all teaching circumstances are appropriate for measuring critical thinking using standardized measurement tools. “The measuring tools for measuring thinking ability have limits in assessing learners in educational situations and should be adapted appropriately to accurately assess the changes in learners’ critical thinking.”, according to Simpson and Courtney ( 2002 , p. 91). As a result, in order to more fully and precisely gauge how learners’ critical thinking has evolved, we must properly modify standardized measuring tools based on collaborative problem-solving learning contexts.

With regard to the subject area, the comprehensive effect size of science departments (e.g., mathematics, science, medical science) is larger than that of language arts and social sciences. Some recent international education reforms have noted that critical thinking is a basic part of scientific literacy. Students with scientific literacy can prove the rationality of their judgment according to accurate evidence and reasonable standards when they face challenges or poorly structured problems (Kyndt et al., 2013 ), which makes critical thinking crucial for developing scientific understanding and applying this understanding to practical problem solving for problems related to science, technology, and society (Yore et al., 2007 ).

Suggestions for critical thinking teaching

Other than those stated in the discussion above, the following suggestions are offered for critical thinking instruction utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

First, teachers should put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, to design real problems based on collaborative situations. This meta-analysis provides evidence to support the view that collaborative problem-solving has a strong synergistic effect on promoting students’ critical thinking. Asking questions about real situations and allowing learners to take part in critical discussions on real problems during class instruction are key ways to teach critical thinking rather than simply reading speculative articles without practice (Mulnix, 2012 ). Furthermore, the improvement of students’ critical thinking is realized through cognitive conflict with other learners in the problem situation (Yang et al., 2008 ). Consequently, it is essential for teachers to put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, and design real problems and encourage students to discuss, negotiate, and argue based on collaborative problem-solving situations.

Second, teachers should design and implement mixed courses to cultivate learners’ critical thinking, utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving. Critical thinking can be taught through curriculum instruction (Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), with the goal of cultivating learners’ critical thinking for flexible transfer and application in real problem-solving situations. This meta-analysis shows that mixed course teaching has a highly substantial impact on the cultivation and promotion of learners’ critical thinking. Therefore, teachers should design and implement mixed course teaching with real collaborative problem-solving situations in combination with the knowledge content of specific disciplines in conventional teaching, teach methods and strategies of critical thinking based on poorly structured problems to help students master critical thinking, and provide practical activities in which students can interact with each other to develop knowledge construction and critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

Third, teachers should be more trained in critical thinking, particularly preservice teachers, and they also should be conscious of the ways in which teachers’ support for learning scaffolds can promote critical thinking. The learning scaffold supported by teachers had the greatest impact on learners’ critical thinking, in addition to being more directive, targeted, and timely (Wood et al., 2006 ). Critical thinking can only be effectively taught when teachers recognize the significance of critical thinking for students’ growth and use the proper approaches while designing instructional activities (Forawi, 2016 ). Therefore, with the intention of enabling teachers to create learning scaffolds to cultivate learners’ critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem solving, it is essential to concentrate on the teacher-supported learning scaffolds and enhance the instruction for teaching critical thinking to teachers, especially preservice teachers.

Implications and limitations

There are certain limitations in this meta-analysis, but future research can correct them. First, the search languages were restricted to English and Chinese, so it is possible that pertinent studies that were written in other languages were overlooked, resulting in an inadequate number of articles for review. Second, these data provided by the included studies are partially missing, such as whether teachers were trained in the theory and practice of critical thinking, the average age and gender of learners, and the differences in critical thinking among learners of various ages and genders. Third, as is typical for review articles, more studies were released while this meta-analysis was being done; therefore, it had a time limit. With the development of relevant research, future studies focusing on these issues are highly relevant and needed.

Conclusions

The subject of the magnitude of collaborative problem-solving’s impact on fostering students’ critical thinking, which received scant attention from other studies, was successfully addressed by this study. The question of the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking was addressed in this study, which addressed a topic that had gotten little attention in earlier research. The following conclusions can be made:

Regarding the results obtained, collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster learners’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]). With respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem-solving can significantly and effectively improve students’ attitudinal tendency, and the comprehensive effect is significant (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).

As demonstrated by both the results and the discussion, there are varying degrees of beneficial effects on students’ critical thinking from all seven moderating factors, which were found across 36 studies. In this context, the teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01) all have a positive impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. Since the learning stage (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05) and measuring tools (chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05) did not demonstrate any significant intergroup differences, we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included within the article and its supplementary information files, and the supplementary information files are available in the Dataverse repository: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IPFJO6 .

Bensley DA, Spero RA (2014) Improving critical thinking skills and meta-cognitive monitoring through direct infusion. Think Skills Creat 12:55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Castle A (2009) Defining and assessing critical thinking skills for student radiographers. Radiography 15(1):70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2007.10.007

Chen XD (2013) An empirical study on the influence of PBL teaching model on critical thinking ability of non-English majors. J PLA Foreign Lang College 36 (04):68–72

Google Scholar  

Cohen A (1992) Antecedents of organizational commitment across occupational groups: a meta-analysis. J Organ Behav. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130602

Cooper H (2010) Research synthesis and meta-analysis: a step-by-step approach, 4th edn. Sage, London, England

Cindy HS (2004) Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educ Psychol Rev 51(1):31–39

Duch BJ, Gron SD, Allen DE (2001) The power of problem-based learning: a practical “how to” for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Stylus Educ Sci 2:190–198

Ennis RH (1989) Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research. Educ Res 18(3):4–10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x018003004

Facione PA (1990) Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. Eric document reproduction service. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed315423

Facione PA, Facione NC (1992) The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) and the CCTDI test manual. California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA

Forawi SA (2016) Standard-based science education and critical thinking. Think Skills Creat 20:52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.02.005

Halpern DF (2001) Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. J Gen Educ 50(4):270–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/27797889

Hu WP, Liu J (2015) Cultivation of pupils’ thinking ability: a five-year follow-up study. Psychol Behav Res 13(05):648–654. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2015.05.010

Huber K (2016) Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 86(2):431–468. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315605917

Kek MYCA, Huijser H (2011) The power of problem-based learning in developing critical thinking skills: preparing students for tomorrow’s digital futures in today’s classrooms. High Educ Res Dev 30(3):329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.501074

Kuncel NR (2011) Measurement and meaning of critical thinking (Research report for the NRC 21st Century Skills Workshop). National Research Council, Washington, DC

Kyndt E, Raes E, Lismont B, Timmers F, Cascallar E, Dochy F (2013) A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings? Educ Res Rev 10(2):133–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002

Leng J, Lu XX (2020) Is critical thinking really teachable?—A meta-analysis based on 79 experimental or quasi experimental studies. Open Educ Res 26(06):110–118. https://doi.org/10.13966/j.cnki.kfjyyj.2020.06.011

Liang YZ, Zhu K, Zhao CL (2017) An empirical study on the depth of interaction promoted by collaborative problem solving learning activities. J E-educ Res 38(10):87–92. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2017.10.014

Lipsey M, Wilson D (2001) Practical meta-analysis. International Educational and Professional, London, pp. 92–160

Liu Z, Wu W, Jiang Q (2020) A study on the influence of problem based learning on college students’ critical thinking-based on a meta-analysis of 31 studies. Explor High Educ 03:43–49

Morris SB (2008) Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organ Res Methods 11(2):364–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Mulnix JW (2012) Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educ Philos Theory 44(5):464–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x

Naber J, Wyatt TH (2014) The effect of reflective writing interventions on the critical thinking skills and dispositions of baccalaureate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today 34(1):67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.04.002

National Research Council (2012) Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Niu L, Behar HLS, Garvan CW (2013) Do instructional interventions influence college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev 9(12):114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002

Peng ZM, Deng L (2017) Towards the core of education reform: cultivating critical thinking skills as the core of skills in the 21st century. Res Educ Dev 24:57–63. https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2017.24.011

Reiser BJ (2004) Scaffolding complex learning: the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. J Learn Sci 13(3):273–304. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2

Ruggiero VR (2012) The art of thinking: a guide to critical and creative thought, 4th edn. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York

Schellens T, Valcke M (2006) Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Comput Educ 46(4):349–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.010

Sendag S, Odabasi HF (2009) Effects of an online problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 53(1):132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.008

Sison R (2008) Investigating Pair Programming in a Software Engineering Course in an Asian Setting. 2008 15th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2008.61

Simpson E, Courtney M (2002) Critical thinking in nursing education: literature review. Mary Courtney 8(2):89–98

Stewart L, Tierney J, Burdett S (2006) Do systematic reviews based on individual patient data offer a means of circumventing biases associated with trial publications? Publication bias in meta-analysis. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, pp. 261–286

Tiwari A, Lai P, So M, Yuen K (2010) A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Med Educ 40(6):547–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02481.x

Wood D, Bruner JS, Ross G (2006) The role of tutoring in problem solving. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 17(2):89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

Wei T, Hong S (2022) The meaning and realization of teachable critical thinking. Educ Theory Practice 10:51–57

Xu EW, Wang W, Wang QX (2022) A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of programming teaching in promoting K-12 students’ computational thinking. Educ Inf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11445-2

Yang YC, Newby T, Bill R (2008) Facilitating interactions through structured web-based bulletin boards: a quasi-experimental study on promoting learners’ critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 50(4):1572–1585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.04.006

Yore LD, Pimm D, Tuan HL (2007) The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. Int J Sci Math Educ 5(4):559–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9089-4

Zhang T, Zhang S, Gao QQ, Wang JH (2022) Research on the development of learners’ critical thinking in online peer review. Audio Visual Educ Res 6:53–60. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2022.06.08

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the graduate scientific research and innovation project of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region named “Research on in-depth learning of high school information technology courses for the cultivation of computing thinking” (No. XJ2022G190) and the independent innovation fund project for doctoral students of the College of Educational Science of Xinjiang Normal University named “Research on project-based teaching of high school information technology courses from the perspective of discipline core literacy” (No. XJNUJKYA2003).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Educational Science, Xinjiang Normal University, 830017, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China

Enwei Xu, Wei Wang & Qingxia Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enwei Xu or Wei Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary tables, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Xu, E., Wang, W. & Wang, Q. The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 16 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

Download citation

Received : 07 August 2022

Accepted : 04 January 2023

Published : 11 January 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Impacts of online collaborative learning on students’ intercultural communication apprehension and intercultural communicative competence.

• Hoa Thi Hoang Chau
• Hung Phu Bui
• Quynh Thi Huong Dinh

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

Exploring the effects of digital technology on deep learning: a meta-analysis

The impacts of computer-supported collaborative learning on students’ critical thinking: a meta-analysis.

• Yoseph Gebrehiwot Tedla
• Hsiu-Ling Chen

Sustainable electricity generation and farm-grid utilization from photovoltaic aquaculture: a bibliometric analysis

• A. A. Amusa
• M. Alhassan

International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Collaborative Problem Solving - Foster/Adoptive Parents

Wednesday, august 3, 2022 – 5:30pm, 5:30pm - 7:30pm.

Collaborative Problem Solving® Parent Class with a focus on Foster/Adoptive Parents - 8-week class

Free & Web-Based! Current classes are offered via Zoom and generously funded by the Oregon Health Authority.

Classes are facilitated by expert local Oregon trainers certified by Think:Kids.

• Learn the Collaborative Problem Solving® approach & effective ways to reduce conflict
• Build skills & confidence in using the CPS approach
• Network & share information about community resources
• Develop new understanding of challenging behavior & learn new ways to help your child
• Rethink conventional approaches to behavioral difficulties and strengthen relationships
• Gain support from other parents

The CPS Approach

The Collaborative Problem Solving® approach is an evidence-based method to managing challenging behavior that promotes the understanding that challenging kids lack the skill - not the will - to behave; specifically, skills related to problem-solving, flexibility and frustration tolerance.

Unlike traditional models of discipline, the CPS approach avoids the use of power, control and motivational procedures and instead focuses on collaborating with the child/ youth/ young adult to solve the problems leading to challenging behavior and building the skills they need to succeed.

Disclaimer:

This facilitator is CPS Certified and receives ongoing supervision from Think:Kids. This class is independent of, and has no direct affiliation with Think:Kids or Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). Information shared by the facilitator reflects their best understanding of the CPS approach.

Think:Kids is a program in the Department of Psychiatry at MGH.

The Child Center

For more information or to register.

This class runs from 5:30PM to 7:30PM each Wednesday , on the following dates:

• 8/3/22 - First Class
• 9/21/22 - Last Class

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/taylor-collaborative-...

What ' s a CPS Parent Class? 

Click here to view a slide show about preparing for your on-line class

 What to expect during registration

Registration: The 2 Steps

Each participant should first choose a class on our Eventbrite site and next, fill out the registration form ! (The information collected is used to mail class materials, meet funder requirements, and for program evaluation.

After Registration:

You will immediately receive notification from Eventbrite.com that you have signed up for a class. You will receive further information about the class 1 to 2 weeks before the first class. On-line participants will receive information about how to log in to the course . T he course workbook will be mailed after week 1 of the class. 

There is no charge to participants. Most classes are funded through Oregon Health Authority. United Way of Lane County funds some classes in rural areas of Lane County. 

Classes are are typically have 8 weekly sessions which are each 90 minutes to 2-hours in length and either on-line or in-person. 

 What to expect in an on-line class

View a slide show about preparing for your on-line class here: On-line Class Preparation  

Live on-line class:  

Classes are conducted live and recording is prohibited to preserve confidentially. 

Please log in a few minutes early and you will be let in close to the start of class. 

Classes are more lively, interesting, and participants learn more, when everyone participates and as many as possible keep their video on.

There will be chances to participate in class as you are comfortable. This ranges from sharing your experiences and struggles to giving thumbs ups and emoji's. The more you participate, the more you will learn during the class experience.

Between classes :

There are between-class exercises which help keep you learning and focusing on the material. The more you apply yourself between classes, the more you will learn! However, if you are parenting between classes, you've been doing your homework!

Most instructors will send a between-class email summary of the last class with additional resources.

At the end of class :

When we reach week 8, and it will come more quickly than you expect, the class will be over! 

Your instructor will request that you complete the questionnaire* that you did during registration again. We request this to meet funder requirements and to evaluate our program.

After you complete the questionnaire* for the second time, a certificate of completion will be emailed for each participant who has attended at least 6 of the 8 classes.

Do you want or need information about your participation shared with another person or agency?**

Without your written legal permission, we cannot share that you have taken the class. Click below to find out how to complete a release of information to allow us to share information. Click here to find out how to get a Release of Information started.  

**Do this early, before class ends, so there are no delays!

Did you miss the first class? Click here to make up week 1 so you are caught up for week 2!

*Questionnaire: How is CPS-AIMs and other data used?

The CPS-AIMs-P v2:  

This is the CPS Adhe re nce and Impact Measure for Par ents. This measurement tools allows us to compare adherence to, and the impact of, the CPS model before parents start the class and after completion of the class. Additionally, our program is committed creating a plan to do a 3- and/or 6-month follow-up. 

Why measure : 

First, we want to make sure we are doing our best and improving our classes! The data from this measure will show us how well we have taught the materials and how much it is helping the parents who have attended the class.

Second, the Oregon Health Authority is requiring us to do this measurement at the beginning and end of class as part of our contract.

Lastly, we are going to do the 3- and/or 6-month follow up to determine what evidence we can show for the positive impact of the class over time. 

Data uses : 

When any data is used, it is anonymized. We look at data without names or other identifying information, comparing all parents average scores on various items before class, after class, and at follow up. This will allow us to quantify progress and program quality.

Data use: Provide evidence of program effectiveness when seeking funding in the future in our ongoing efforts to keep these classes free! 

Data use: Internal use at The Child Center to measure program quality and success over time. 

Data use: Anonymized demographic data sent to OHA as part of quarterly program reporting. Examples: number of participants, number/ages of children in household, zip code, etc.

Data use: Potential future use of combined anonymized data in article or research report on the effectiveness of CPS parent education classes as an intervention to help families and youth.

• CPS With Kids (and Adults)
• Trauma-Informed FBA
• HeartMath Services
• Our Clients

What is the Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) model®( MGH ), in a nutshell?

A unique and innovative strengths-based and neurobiologically grounded model, Collaborative Problem Solving (or CPS, as it is commonly referred to) was developed at Massachusetts General Hospital, and now continues to be researched and disseminated out of a program at MGH called Think:Kids . (Portions of this page are adapted from www.thinkkids.org)

An evidence-based approach for understanding and working with children and adolescents, as well as transition-aged youth and adults, who demonstrate challenging behavior

• A mindful, empathetic and empowering way of parenting, teaching and otherwise serving typically developing children and teens
• An approach designed to work with children and adolescents (as well as adults) across a wide variety of settings such as: – Home – School / Daycare – Foster Care – Therapeutic / Residential Settings
• A way of operationalizing trauma-informed care on a large scale (i.e, systems-wide, state-wide, province-wide) through the framework of a common philosophy and language used in a structured relational process

Rick & Doris Bowman are Certified Trainers of the Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) approach by Think:Kids, a program based in the Department of Psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, MA – www.thinkkids.org

Excellent presentation! Offered fresh perspective for me and, eventually, to my family.

As both a special education teacher and a parent, the skills I learned during Collaborative Problem Solving Training provided by Rick and Doris have allowed me to better understand and support children and their needs. Their passion for the content and extensive real-life experiences have stoked an enthusiasm for sharing this strategy with other parents and colleagues. Additionally, their continued support after the training concluded led me to pursue becoming certified in Collaborative Problem Solving, with the goal of becoming a trainer.

Who can benefit from Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) Training®( MGH )?

• Educators: Administrators, Teachers, Counselors, School Psychologists, Classified Staff
• Childcare Providers
• Foster Parents and Agency Staff
• Juvenile Justice Staff
• Mental Health Practitioners
• Medical Practitioners
• Law Enforcement & Other Public Safety Officers
• Parents and Family Members

Collaborative Problem Solving was a new found blessing in my career. I wish I had met Doris and Rick sooner. I have 30+ years of educational experience and found their training to be excellent. CPS melds all of the best practice trainings I have had into a complete package. I highly recommend Bowman Consultants and the CPS training!

What’s to be gained by learning the CPS approach®( MGH )?

• The ability to pursue high priority expectations
• The ability to reduce challenging behavior
• The ability to proactively solve problems in a durable manner
• The ability to build skills that the child/individual is lacking
• The ability to preserve or build a helping relationship while doing all of the above

I felt like the presentation was great! We really got a chance to work on scenarios, and become comfortable with the process. Truly a great class, and I will be using the tools I learned today, not only in the work setting, but in my home.

Ready to schedule your CPS training?

Call us at 503-896-6780 or click the button below go to our training calendar:, what’s the premise of the collaborative problem solving®( mgh ) approach.

• Challenging behavior is best understood as a by-product of lagging thinking skills (rather than, for example, as attention-seeking, manipulative, limit-testing or a sign of poor motivation)
• These challenges are best addressed by teaching a child/person the skills they lack (rather than persisting in the use of intensive imposition of adult will, or punishment and reward systems that have proven unsuccessful thus far)
• While challenging behaviors can look common across populations of children/people who get lumped into categories, the complexity of lagging thinking skills that set the stage for the challenging behavior can be quite unique to each individual, and assessing these skill deficits properly is key to making progress in solving the problems that are created by the behaviors
• Proper assessment and planning is key to identifying the lagging thinking skills, and then implementing the CPS process referred to as “Plan B”, which integrates not only skill-building, but all of the components that have been shown to be sound practice for trauma informed care: rhythm, empathy, co-regulation of child/person and parent/practitioner, etc.

The Bowmans are engaging presenters who are passionate about supporting districts in their quest to help students be more successful in school and beyond. They are fully engaged with making sure the district has the support and tools they need to implement Collaborative Problem Solving.

Sounds like a lot of training and effort… What makes CPS worth the investment?

Brain research supports the use of Collaborative Problem Solving: Research by Dr. Bruce Perry (leading neuroscientist who studies impacts of childhood trauma on the brain – https://childtrauma.org/ ) among others, indicates that numerous aspects of the CPS process referred to as “Plan B” provide components that are critical in order for the brain to develop new neurological pathways. These new neural pathways can become what Dr. Perry refers to as a new “default template” that is necessary in order for the challenging behaviors to be replaced with new, more adaptable behaviors

• Far less time, effort and agony are expended learning and implementing CPS than any of the following: – Imposing adult will in the face of resistance time and time again – Coming up with more and more elaborate systems of reward and punishment – Revisiting the same issues over and over with little or no skill development
• CPS offers outcomes that are rarely, if ever, accomplished by traditional forms of responding to challenging behavior: – Proactively solving problems in a durable manner – Building critical, lifelong skills that the child/individual is lacking – Preserving or building/rebuilding a helping relationship while solving problems

Material was presented in a logical and inspirational way!

Makes the model come alive! Very authentic!

So what kind of Collaborative Problem Solving training is available? How do I get training for myself or my organization?

Collaborative Problem Solving training typically occurs in 3 phases for those who wish to become skilled at a level that will promote consistent fidelity and outcomes:

• Introductory Training – Ranging from 2-hour Overview to 8-hour Comprehensive Introductions, these provide a foundational understanding of the model and the essential components for implementation.
• Tier 1 – A two and a half day training, complete with video modeling, role-playing, and case studies that equips participants to be proficient in solid implementation of the model, this includes: In-depth exposure to assessment, planning and intervention components; practice identifying triggers, unmet expectations and specific skill deficits; as well as trouble-shooting when the process is challenging.
• Tier 2 – Taught exclusively by Think:Kids Staff, this level of training is for those who want to gain a higher level of proficiency, and be able to support others within their agency or organization, including: implementation in the most difficult situations, teaching the model to others, addressing common resistance and gaining buy-in, addressing systemic issues such as leadership during culture change, and enhancing communication structures.

I am very interested in attending the full version of this training. The presenter was fantastic and explained the info in a very easy to understand way. Great info and mindset as a starting point, and I definitely want to learn more!

The presenter was very knowledgeable and open to questions throughout the class! I would refer others to this class.

Call us at 503-896-6780 or click the button below to go to our training calendar:

Collaborative Problem Solving®

6-week parent class.

Help for caregivers raising kids with challenging behaviors

VIRTUAL 6-WEEK PARENT CLASS

Help for Caregivers Raising Kids with Challenging Behaviors

Having a child with behavior challenges can feel lonely and leave parents and caregivers feeling lost. Traditional rewards and consequences have been ineffective, despite everyone's best efforts.

But there is HOPE!

The Collaborative Problem Solving® approach is an evidence-based method to managing challenging behavior that promotes the understanding that challenging kids lack the skill - not the will - to behave; specifically, skills related to problem-solving, flexibility and frustration tolerance.

Register for this 6 week class for parents to:

• Learn the Collaborative Problem Solving® approach & effective ways to reduce conflict
• Build your child's skills
• Gain confidence in using the CPS approach
• Network and share information about community resources
• Develop new understanding of challenging behavior and learn new ways to help your child
• Rethink conventional approaches to behavioral difficulties and strengthen relationships
• Gain support from other parents

Virtual CPS Class Registration Information

2 UPCOMING VIRTUAL CLASSES

DATES: 6 Tuesday Evenings in August 2024

TIME: 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM

1️⃣   August 20, 2024

2️⃣   August 27, 2024

3️⃣   September 3, 2024

4️⃣   September 10, 2024

5️⃣   September 17, 2024

6️⃣   September 24, 2024

DATES: 6 Thursday Mornings in October 2024

TIME: 10 AM - 12 PM

1️⃣   October 10, 2024

2️⃣   October 17, 2024

3️⃣   October 24, 2024

4️⃣   October 31, 2024

5️⃣   November 7, 2024

6️⃣   November 14, 2024

Each registrant will be sent a unique Zoom link after registration.

$75 per person / $100 per couple

Hosted By: Lauren Ma

Director of growth and operations for stowell learning centers and mom of 2.

Lauren is a Collaborative Problem Solving® Certified parent educator.

She has worked with neurodiverse students for over 18 years at Stowell Learning Center and has a real passion for building their skills to help them thrive in both school and life.

Lauren began her career in education as an elementary public school teacher, but left the classroom after becoming frustrated with the limited solutions for students with learning challenges.

She now oversees all four centers in the Southern California area (Chino, Irvine, Pasadena Thousand Oaks).

She is also a mom to two highly-sensitive and creative girls who keep her constantly learning (and on her toes!)

“When parents and teachers learn to look at behavior as a skills problem

and embrace the CPS approach, it truly changes everything.”

- Jill Stowell

In the video below, Jill Stowell and Lauren Ma discuss Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) and the upcoming 6-Week Parent Class:

• What is Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS)?
• How CPS can help you and your child with challenging behaviors 
• What changes other families have experienced 
• Why you should make the CPS parent class a priority

What is Collaborative Problem Solving®?

Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) is an evidence-based approach developed by Think:Kids, a program based in the Department of Psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, MA. CPS is a big shift when it comes to understanding your child's challenging behaviors and what to do about it.

CPS is proven to:

• Reduce challenging behavior
• Increase compliance
• Improve family relationships
• Help your child build the skills they lack

▶️ Watch our LD Expert Live episode video below featuring Dr. Stuart Ablon, Director of Think:Kids, on the Collaborative Problem Solving® Approach

Collaborative Problem Solving® in Pediatric Primary Care

SUMMARY – Pediatric primary care providers are increasingly treating pediatric mental health conditions, however, they need more tools to support caregivers with youth who exhibit challenging behaviors. Collaborative Problem Solving® is an approach that provides caregivers with the skills to respond to challenging behaviors to help youth be their best.

Project Details

Collaborative Problem Solving® is an evidence-based approach that provides caregivers with the skills to respond to challenging behavior. It promotes the understanding that children and youth with behavioral challenges lack the skill—not the will—to behave; specifically, skills related to problem-solving, flexibility, and frustration tolerance. The Collaborative Problem Solving® approach has been effectively used across child-serving systems to build empathy, teach youth the skills they lack, and improve relationships.

Now, The Meadows Institute is partnering with Think:Kids at Massachusetts General Hospital to increase access to this important approach by making it accessible to caregivers through their child’s pediatrician.

Research has shown that Collaborative Problem Solving reduces challenging behavior, stress levels, and punitive responses and teaches children the skills they lack while improving relationships with adults in their lives.

Through this initiative, pediatric primary care providers, behavioral health clinicians, and caregivers across North Texas will receive training in Collaborative Problem Solving. Future training opportunities will be shared here.

Upcoming Trainings

Please check back for upcoming trainings.

Past Trainings

February 27, 28, & 29, 2024 This training introduces the basic principles of Collaborative Problem Solving, an innovative, trauma informed, and evidence based approach to understanding and helping kids with challenging behavior. Participants learn a more empathic and accurate understanding of what causes challenging behavior and are exposed to an overview of the three key components of the Collaborative Problem Solving® approach.

View Event Details

September 28 & 29, 2023 This training introduces the basic principles of Collaborative Problem Solving, an innovative, trauma informed, and evidence based approach to understanding and helping kids with challenging behavior. Participants learn a more empathic and accurate understanding of what causes challenging behavior and are exposed to an overview of the three key components of the Collaborative Problem Solving® approach.

Get in touch to learn more about our services and how we can help your community.

The California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare

• Contact the CEBC
• Sign up for The CEBC Connection
• Topic Areas
• Rating Scales
• Implementation-Specific Tools & Resources
• Implementation Guide
• Implementation Examples

Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS)

About this program.

Target Population: Children and adolescents (ages 3-21) with a variety of behavioral challenges, including both externalizing (e.g., aggression, defiance, tantrums) and internalizing (e.g., implosions, shutdowns, withdrawal) who may carry a variety of related psychiatric diagnoses, and their parents/caregivers, unless not age appropriate (e.g. young adult or transition age youth)

For children/adolescents ages: 3 – 21

For parents/caregivers of children ages: 3 – 21

Program Overview

Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) is an approach to understanding and helping children with behavioral challenges who may carry a variety of psychiatric diagnoses, including oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, mood disorders, bipolar disorder, autism spectrum disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, etc. CPS uses a structured problem solving process to help adults pursue their expectations while reducing challenging behavior and building helping relationships and thinking skills. Specifically, the CPS approach focuses on teaching the neurocognitive skills that challenging kids lack related to problem solving, flexibility, and frustration tolerance. Unlike traditional models of discipline, this approach avoids the use of power, control, and motivational procedures and instead focuses on teaching at-risk kids the skills they need to succeed. CPS provides a common philosophy, language and process with clear guideposts that can be used across settings. In addition, CPS operationalizes principles of trauma-informed care.

Program Goals

The goals of Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) are:

• Reduction in externalizing and internalizing behaviors
• Reduction in use of restrictive interventions (restraint, seclusion)
• Reduction in caregiver/teacher stress
• Increase in neurocognitive skills in youth and caregivers
• Increase in family involvement
• Increase in parent-child relationships
• Increase in program cost savings

Logic Model

View the Logic Model for Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) .

Essential Components

The essential components of Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) include:

• Three different types of intervention delivery to parents and/or children/adolescents depending on the personal situation:
• Family therapy sessions (conducted both with and without the youth) which typically take place weekly for approximately 10-12 weeks
• 4- and 8-week parent training curricula that teach the basics of the model to parents in a group format (maximum group size = 12 participants)
• Direct delivery to youth in treatment or educational settings in planned sessions or in a milieu
• In the family sessions or parent training sessions, parents receive:
• An overarching philosophy to guide the practice of the approach ("kids do well if they can")
• A specific assessment process and measures to identify challenging behaviors, predictable precipitants, and specific thinking skill deficits. Lagging thinking skills are identified in five primary domains:
• Language and Communication Skills
• Attention and Working Memory Skills
• Emotion and Self-Regulation Skills
• Cognitive Flexibility Skills
• Social Thinking Skills
• A specific planning process that helps adults prioritize behavioral goals and decide how to respond to predictable difficulties using 3 simple options based upon the goals they are trying to pursue:
• Plan A – Imposition of adult will
• Plan B – Solve the problem collaboratively
• Plan C – Drop the expectation (for now, at least)
• A specific problem solving process (operationalizing "Plan B") with three core ingredients that is used to collaborate with the youth to solve problems durably, pursue adult expectations, reduce challenging behaviors, teach skills, and create or restore a helping relationship.
• When directly working with the youth in treatment or education settings, providers engage youth with:

Program Delivery

Child/adolescent services.

Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) directly provides services to children/adolescents and addresses the following:

• A range of internalizing and externalizing behaviors, including (but not limited to) physical and verbal aggression, destruction of property, self-harm, substance abuse, tantrums, meltdowns, explosions, implosive behaviors (shutting down), crying, pouting, whining, withdrawal, defiance, and oppositionality

Parent/Caregiver Services

Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) directly provides services to parents/caregivers and addresses the following:

• Child with internalizing and/or externalizing behaviors, difficulty effectively problem solving with their child

Services Involve Family/Support Structures:

This program involves the family or other support systems in the individual's treatment: Any caregivers, educators, and other supports are essential to the success of the approach. Caregivers, teachers and other adult supporters are taught to use the approach with the child outside the context of the clinical setting. School and clinical staff typically learn the model via single or multi-day workshops and through follow-up training and coaching.

Recommended Intensity:

Typically family therapy (in which the youth is the identified patient, but the parents are heavily involved in the sessions so that they can get better at using the approach with their child on their own) occurs once per week for approximately 1 hour. The approach can also be delivered in the home with greater frequency/intensity, such as twice a week for 90 minutes. Parent training group sessions occur once a week for 90 minutes over the course of 4 or 8 weeks. The approach can also be delivered by direct care staff in a treatment setting and/or educators in a school system, in which case delivery is not limited to scheduled sessions, but occurs in the context of regular contact in a residence or classroom.

Recommended Duration:

Family therapy: 8-12 weeks; In-home therapy: 8-12 weeks; Parent training groups: 4-8 weeks

Delivery Settings

This program is typically conducted in a(n):

• Adoptive Home
• Birth Family Home
• Foster / Kinship Care
• Outpatient Clinic
• Community-based Agency / Organization / Provider
• Group or Residential Care
• Justice Setting (Juvenile Detention, Jail, Prison, Courtroom, etc.)
• School Setting (Including: Day Care, Day Treatment Programs, etc.)

Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) includes a homework component:

Identifying specific precipitants, prioritizing behavioral goals, and practicing the problem solving process are expected to be completed by the caregiver and youth between sessions.

Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) has materials available in languages other than English :

Chinese, French, Spanish

For information on which materials are available in these languages, please check on the program's website or contact the program representative ( contact information is listed at the bottom of this page).

Resources Needed to Run Program

The typical resources for implementing the program are:

Trained personnel. If being delivered as parent group training, it requires a room big enough to hold the number of families (anywhere from a couple of parents up to 12 participants), as well as A/V equipment or printed materials for delivery of material in training curriculum.

Manuals and Training

Prerequisite/minimum provider qualifications.

Service providers and supervisors must be certified in CPS . There is no minimum educational level required before certification process can begin.

Manual Information

There is a manual that describes how to deliver this program.

Program Manual(s)

Treatment Manual: Greene, R. W., & Ablon, J. S. (2005). Treating explosive kids: The Collaborative Problem Solving approach . Guilford Press.

Training Information

There is training available for this program.

Training Contact:

• Think: Kids at Massachusetts General Hospital [email protected] phone: (617) 643-6030

Training Type/Location:

Training can be obtained onsite, at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, at trainings hosted in other locations, online (introductory training only), or via video/phone training and coaching.

Number of days/hours:

Ranges from a 2-hour exposure training to more intensive (2.5 day) advanced sessions as well as hourly coaching:

• Exposure/Introductory training: These in-person and online trainings typically last from 2–6 hours and provide a general overview exposure of the model including the overarching philosophy, the assessment , planning and intervention process. Training can accommodate an unlimited number of participants.
• Two-and-a-half day intensive trainings that provide participants in-depth exposure to all aspects of the model using didactic training, video demonstration, role play and breakout group practice. Tier 1 training is limited to 150 participants. Tier 2 training is limited to 75 participants.
• Coaching sessions for up to 12 participants that provide ongoing support and troubleshooting in the model

Additional Resources:

There currently are additional qualified resources for training:

There are many certified trainers throughout North America who teach the model as well as well as systems that use the approach. The list is available at https://thinkkids.org/our-communities

Implementation Information

Pre-implementation materials.

There are pre-implementation materials to measure organizational or provider readiness for Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) as listed below:

A CPS Organizational Readiness Assessment measure has been developed that is available for systems interested in implementing the model. It can be obtained by contacting the Director of Research and Evaluation, Dr. Alisha Pollastri, at [email protected].

Formal Support for Implementation

There is formal support available for implementation of Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) as listed below:

For organization-wide implementation , Think:Kids offers formal implementation support, including ongoing coaching of staff to maximize practice fidelity , implementation consultation to the organization’s leader(s) or implementation team, and implementation /outcome monitoring and reporting. Organizations that opt for implementation support are matched with a Think:Kids Project Manager who helps coordinate the various training and implementation activities. There is a Manager of Implementation at Think:Kids who oversees these implementation supports.

Fidelity Measures

There are fidelity measures for Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) as listed below:

Self-Study of CPS Sustainability, Updated 06/2019 : A guide for systems to assess the degree to which they have put the structures in place to implement CPS with fidelity .

CPS Manualized Expert-Rated Integrity Coding System (CPS-MEtRICS) and Practice Integrity Form (CPS-PIF) : Fidelity tools to help measure the degree to which CPS is being practiced with fidelity in a specific encounter.

Both of the above can be obtained by contacting the Director of Research and Evaluation, Dr. Alisha Pollastri, at [email protected]

Established Psychometrics:

Pollastri, A. R., Wang, L., Raftery-Helmer, J. N., Hurley, S., Eddy, C. J., Sisson, J., Thompson, N., & Ablon, J. S. (2022). Development and evaluation of an audio coding system for assessing providers’ integrity to Collaborative Problem Solving in youth-service settings. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 53 (6), 640–650. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000476

Wang, L., Stoll, S. J., Eddy, C. J., Hurley, S., Sisson, J., Thompson, N., Raftery-Helmer, J., Ablon, J. S., & Pollastri, A. R. (2023). Pragmatic fidelity measurement in youth service settings. Implementation Research and Practice . Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895231185380

Implementation Guides or Manuals

There are implementation guides or manuals for Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) as listed below:

Clinician Session Guide : Guides the clinician in all aspects of the treatment, from initial assessment to ongoing work. Can be obtained by contacting the Director of Research and Evaluation, Dr. Alisha Pollastri, at [email protected].

CPS Coaching Guide : A guide specifically geared towards trainer individuals who are helping caregivers to implement the model over time. Available to certified trainers.

CPS Implementation Manual : Provides detailed implementation guideposts and instructions for those implementing CPS system-wide. Available to organizations opting for CPS implementation support from Think:Kids. More information available from the Manager of Implementation , Hallie Carpenter, at [email protected]

Implementation Cost

There are no studies of the costs of Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) .

Research on How to Implement the Program

Research has been conducted on how to implement Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) as listed below:

Ercole-Fricke, E., Fritz, P., Hill, L. E., & Snelders, J. (2016). Effects of a Collaborative Problem Solving approach on an inpatient adolescent psychiatric unit. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 29 (3), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcap.12149

Pollastri, A. R., Boldt, S., Lieberman, R., & Ablon, J. S. (2016). Minimizing seclusion and restraint in youth residential and day treatment through site-wide implementation of Collaborative Problem Solving. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 33 (3-4), 186–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571X.2016.1188340

Pollastri, A. R., Ablon, J. S., & Hone, M. J. (Eds.). (2019). Collaborative Problem Solving: An evidence-based approach to implementation and practice. Springer.

Pollastri, A. R., Wang, L., Youn, S. J., Ablon, J. S., & Marques, L. (2020). The value of implementation frameworks: Using the active implementation frameworks to guide system-wide implementation of Collaborative Problem Solving. Journal of Community Psychology , 48 (4), 1114–1131. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22325

Relevant Published, Peer-Reviewed Research

Child Welfare Outcome: Child/Family Well-Being

Greene, R. W., Ablon J. S., Goring, J. C., Raezer-Blakely, L., Markey, J., Monuteaux, M. C., Henin, A, Edwards, G., & Rabbitt, S. (2004). Effectiveness of Collaborative Problem Solving in affectively dysregulated children with oppositional defiant disorder: Initial findings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72 (6), 1157–1164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.6.1157

Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial Number of Participants: 47

Population:

• Age — 4–12 years
• Race/Ethnicity — Not specified
• Gender — 32 Male and 15 Female
• Status — Participants were parents and their children with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD).

Location/Institution: Massachusetts

Summary: (To include basic study design, measures, results, and notable limitations) The purpose of the study was to examine the efficacy of Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) in affectively dysregulated children with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). Participants were randomized to either the parent training version of CPS or parent training (PT). Measures utilized include the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children—Epidemiologic version (K-SADS–E), the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Revised, the Parent–Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI), the Parenting Stress Index (PSI), the Oppositional Defiant Disorder Rating Scale (ODDRS), and the Clinical Global Impression–Improvement (CGI-I) . Results indicate that CPS produced significant improvements across multiple domains of functioning at posttreatment and at 4-month follow-up. Limitations include small sample size and length of follow-up.

Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: 4 months.

Pollastri, A. R., Boldt, S., Lieberman, R., & Ablon, J. S. (2016). Pollastri, A. R., Boldt, S., Lieberman, R., & Ablon, J. S. (2016). Minimizing seclusion and restraint in youth residential and day treatment through site-wide implementation of Collaborative Problem Solving. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth. 33 (3–4), 186–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571X.2016.1188340

Type of Study: Pretest–posttest study with a nonequivalent control group (Quasi-experimental) Number of Participants: Not specified

• Age — Not specified
• Gender — Not specified
• Status — Participants were in residential and day treatment and included youth in foster care and child welfare.

Location/Institution: Oregon

Summary: (To include basic study design, measures, results, and notable limitations) The purpose of the study was to describe the results of one agency’s experience implementing the Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) approach organization-wide and its effect on reducing seclusion and restraint (S/R) rates. Participants were grouped into the CPS intervention at a residential or day treatment facility. Measures utilized include the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) and the Child and Adolescent Needs Assessment (CANS) . Results indicate that during the time studied, frequency of restrictive events in the residential facility decreased from an average of 25.5 per week to 2.5 per week, and restrictive events in the day treatment facility decreased from an average of 2.8 per week to 7 per year. Limitations include lack of randomization of participants, and lack of follow-up.

Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: None.

Additional References

Greene, R. W., & Ablon, J. S. (2005). Treating explosive kids: The Collaborative Problem Solving approach . Guilford Press.

Greene, R. W., Ablon, J. S., Goring, J. C., Fazio, V., & Morse, L. R. (2003). Treatment of oppositional defiant disorder in children and adolescents. In P. Barrett & T. H. Ollendick (Eds.), Handbook of Interventions that work with children and adolescents: Prevention and treatment. John Wiley & Sons.

Pollastri, A. R., Epstein, L. D., Heath, G. H., & Ablon, J. S. (2013). The Collaborative Problem Solving approach: Outcomes across settings. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 21 (4), 188–199. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24651507/

Contact Information

Date Research Evidence Last Reviewed by CEBC: July 2023

Date Program Content Last Reviewed by Program Staff: December 2023

Date Program Originally Loaded onto CEBC: May 2017

Glossary | Sitemap | Limitations & Disclosures

The CEBC is funded by the California Department of Social Services’ (CDSS’) Office of Child Abuse Prevention and is one of their targeted efforts to improve the lives of children and families served within child welfare system.

© copyright 2006-2024 The California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare www.cebc4cw.org

Print & Share

• (541) 726-1465 Main phone
• Parenting Skills Classes
• INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES - WELLNESS AND COMMUNITY HEALTH
• MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT - DAY TREATMENT PROGRAM
• MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT - INTENSIVE SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY BASED PROGRAMS
• MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT - MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
• MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT - MOBILE RESPONSE AND STABILIZATION SERVICES
• MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT - OUTPATIENT PROGRAM

• Idaho Youth Ranch Website

Collaborative Problem Solving for Parents: A Step-by-Step Guide to Addressing Family Issues

Idaho Youth Ranch May 17, 2023 11:45:00 AM

Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) is an evidence-based approach that focuses on understanding and addressing the root causes of challenging behavior in children and adolescents. Developed by Dr. Ross Greene, CPS aims to foster empathy, communication, and collaboration between parents and their children to find effective and lasting solutions for family issues This resource guide provides an overview of the CPS model, outlines the key principles and steps involved, and offers practical tips and strategies for parents. Additionally, it includes three real-life family situations to demonstrate how to apply CPS in various contexts.  

Understanding the Collaborative Problem Solving Model 

1. The CPS Philosophy

CPS is grounded in the belief that children do well if they can. The approach posits that challenging behavior is not due to a lack of motivation, attention-seeking, or manipulation but rather a result of lagging skills and unsolved problems. By understanding and addressing these underlying factors, parents can develop more effective, compassionate, and sustainable solutions.  

2. Key Principles of CPS

Empathy: The foundation of the CPS model is empathic understanding, which involves recognizing and validating the feelings and perspectives of all family members.  

Collaboration: CPS emphasizes the importance of working together, rather than relying on unilateral decision-making or power-based approaches.  

Skill-building: The CPS approach focuses on identifying and addressing lagging skills, such as emotion regulation, problem-solving, and communication, to promote lasting change.  

Implementing the Collaborative Problem Solving Process 

1. Identifying Lagging Skills

The first step in the CPS process is to identify the specific skills that your child may be struggling with. This can be done through a combination of observation, communication, and reflection. Some common lagging skills include:  

Emotional regulation  

Flexibility  

Impulse control  

Problem-solving  

Communication

Once lagging skills have been identified, the next step is to determine the specific situations or problems that are causing difficulties for your child and family. Unsolved problems are often characterized by predictability and can be uncovered through discussions with your child.  

The Three Steps of Collaborative Problem Solving

The CPS process involves three primary steps, which can be adapted and tailored to the unique needs and circumstances of each family.  

Step 1: Empathy

Begin by gathering information and understanding your child’s perspective on the problem. This step involves active listening, validating emotions, and demonstrating genuine curiosity.  

Step 2: Define Adult Concerns 

Clearly articulate your concerns and needs regarding the situation. This step promotes mutual understanding and acknowledges the importance of addressing both your child’s and your concerns.  

Step 3: Invitation to Collaborate 

Invite your child to brainstorm possible solutions together. Encourage them to consider a range of ideas and evaluate each option based on its feasibility and effectiveness in addressing both your child’s and your concerns.  

Real-Life Examples of Collaborative Problem Solving 

Example 1: Homework Struggles 

Lagging Skills : time management, sustained attention, and frustration tolerance  

Unsolved Problem : difficulty completing homework independently and on time

Step 1: Empathy 

Ask your child about their perspective on the homework situation, and listen to their concerns and frustrations.  

Share your concerns about the importance of completing homework to support their learning and academic success.  

Brainstorm possible solutions together, such as creating a homework schedule, breaking tasks into smaller steps, and providing support as needed.  

Example 2: Sibling Conflicts 

Lagging Skills : emotion regulation, perspective-taking, and conflict resolution  

Unsolved Problem : frequent arguments and conflicts between siblings  

Talk to each child individually to understand their feelings and perspectives on the conflicts.  

Share your concerns about the impact of the conflicts on the family environment and the importance of fostering healthy sibling relationships.  

Involve both siblings in brainstorming possible solutions, such as setting ground rules for communication, establishing a conflict resolution process, and practicing empathy and active listening.  

Example 3: Bedtime Resistance 

Lagging Skills: transitions, self-soothing, and sleep hygiene 

Unsolved Problem : difficulty settling down and falling asleep at bedtime 

Ask your child about their feelings and thoughts related to bedtime, and listen to any fears or concerns they may have.  

Share your concerns about the importance of a consistent bedtime routine for their health, well-being, and overall development. 

Work together to develop a bedtime routine that addresses both your child’s and your concerns, such as establishing a calming pre-bedtime activity, creating a comfortable sleep environment, and gradually adjusting the bedtime schedule.  

Collaborative Problem Solving offers a compassionate and effective approach to addressing challenging behaviors and family issues. By understanding the underlying causes of these difficulties and engaging in a collaborative, empathic problem-solving process, parents can help their children develop lasting solutions and strengthen their relationships. By following the principles and steps outlined in this resource guide and adapting your approach to meet the unique needs of your family, you can support your children in achieving positive, sustainable change.  

Hotel Livny

View prices for your travel dates

• Excellent 2
• Very Good 0
• All languages ( 10 )
• Russian ( 10 )
• English ( 0 )

Own or manage this property? Claim your listing for free to respond to reviews, update your profile and much more.

HOTEL LIVNY

Structured data

Items portrayed in this file, 6f6d580273d1457e5d4b1b47750990a45e193e47, 11,202 byte.

• Coats of arms of districts of Oryol Oblast
• Coat of arms images that should use vector graphics
• PNG that should use vector graphics
• PD-RU-exempt
• Vector-Images.com images

Navigation menu

• Collaborative Problem Solving as Trauma-Informed Care »
• FOR CLINICIANS
• FOR EDUCATORS
• FOR PARENTS

Recent Articles

• How To Talk to Your Kids About Social Media
• Corporal Punishment Ban in New York Sparks Awareness of Practice
• Kids Lack Skill, Not Will
• The Village Network's Implementation Journey
• To Fix Students’ Bad Behavior, Stop Punishing Them
• Behaviors Charts: Helpful or Harmful?

TRAUMA-INFORMED CARE

Collaborative problem solving as trauma-informed care, the impact of trauma on brain development and what to do about it.

There is renewed interest in the effects of chronic, overwhelming stress and trauma on children’s development. Trauma-informed care is emphasized more than ever. Yet, parents, educators, clinicians, mental health workers and law enforcement alike still struggle to understand the impacts of trauma on brain development in a concrete and tangible way. Perhaps even more so, adults trying to help these children and adolescents long for user friendly and accessible strategies that operationalize what brain science tells us will be helpful to facilitate development arrested as a result of complex developmental trauma.

Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) is a practical, evidence-based process that all adults can follow in any setting to ensure trauma-informed intervention. CPS has been used effectively across systems to provide concrete strategies that operationalize fundamental principles of neurodevelopment.

Specifically, CPS first helps adults understand how children exposed to chronic overwhelming stress and trauma do not lack the will to behave well, they lack the skills to behave well. CPS helps adults understand how toxic stress and trauma arrests brain development by identifying the specific skills they children lack in areas like flexibility, frustration tolerance and problem solving. Then CPS provides clear guideposts for adults to use in order to engage children in problem solving discussions which build helping relationships with the children while fostering a relational process that develops flexibility, problem solving, and emotion regulation skills. All the while, CPS avoids the use of power an control which is re-traumatizing and instead aims to help reduce the power differential which traumatized children find so dysregulating.

The latest neuroscience research has shown that facilitating brain change is not about erasing old associations in the brain resulting from trauma, but about creating new associations in the brain – in other words, new neural pathways. Exposing children repeatedly to small, digestible doses of novel experiences with a different, more positive emotional quality to them creates these pathways. The challenge is that the brain processes information from the bottom up. So with traumatized children, one must help regulate them at the level of the brainstem before you can engage their limbic system to relate to them and finally then teach them the kind of higher order problem-solving skills that are located at the level of the prefrontal cortex or top of the brain. The CPS process respects this awareness of the sequence of engagement at the level of the brain by recruiting the brainstem first, then the mid-brain and finally the cortex. It begins by teaching adults how to help children stay regulated through the use of empathic listening and curiosity. Once a child is regulated, CPS then helps the adult relate to the child by sharing their adult concerns. Finally, the child is then asked to reason with the adult to collaborate and brainstorm solutions. The entire process is built to help adults expose children to these small, digestible doses of “good stress” needed to foster brain change.

Privacy Overview

Subscribe to Our Newsletter