Effects of a Universal Parenting Program for Highly Adherent Parents: A Propensity Score Matching Approach
- 1.1k Downloads
This paper examines the effectiveness of a group-based universal parent training program as a strategy to improve parenting practices and prevent child problem behavior. In a dissemination trial, 56 schools were first selected through a stratified sampling procedure, and then randomly allocated to treatment conditions. 819 parents of year 1 primary school children in 28 schools were offered Triple P. 856 families in 28 schools were allocated to the control condition. Teacher, primary caregiver and child self-report data were collected at baseline, post, and two follow-up assessments. Analyses were constrained to highly adherent parents who completed all four units of the parenting program. A propensity score matching approach was used to compare parents fully exposed to the intervention with parents in the control condition, who were matched on 54 baseline characteristics. Results suggest that the intervention had no consistent effects on either five dimensions of parenting practices or five dimensions of child problem behavior, assessed by three different informants. These findings diverge from findings reported by program developers and distributors. Potential explanations for the discrepancy and implications for future research are discussed.
KeywordsPrevention Randomized controlled trial Propensity score matching Parent training
We wish to acknowledge financial support for the study by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Jacobs Foundation, the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, the Canton of Zurich Ministry of Education, and the Julius Baer Foundation. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.
- Becker, S. O., & Ichino, A. (2002). Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. The Stata Journal, 2, 358–377.Google Scholar
- Clerkin, S. M., Marks, D. J., Policaro, K. L., & Halperin, J. M. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire-preschool revision. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 36, 19–28.Google Scholar
- Diaz, J. J., & Handa, S. (2006). An assessment of propensity score matching as a nonexperimental impact estimator: Evidence from Mexico’s PROGRESA program. Journal of Human Resources, XLI, 319–345.Google Scholar
- Eyberg, S. M., & Ross, A. W. (1978). Assessment of child behavior problems: The validation of a new inventory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 7, 113–116.Google Scholar
- Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2007). Saving children from a life of crime; early risk factors and effective interventions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Greenberg, M. T., Kusché, C. A., & Mihalic, S. F. (1998). Blueprints for violence prevention, book ten: Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS). Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.Google Scholar
- Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2010). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Heinrichs, N., Hahlweg, K., Bertram, H., Kuschel, A., Naumann, S., & Harstick, S. (2006). Die langfristige Wirksamkeit eines Elterntrainings zur universellen Prävention kindlicher Verhaltensstörungen: Ergebnisse aus Sicht der Mütter und Väter. Zeitschrift für klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 35, 82–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Leuven, E., & Sianesi, B. (2003). PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html.
- Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice ((pp, Vol. 7, pp. 29–149). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
- Malti, T., Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M. (2011). The effects of two universal preventive interventions to reduce children’s externalizing behavior: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40, 677–692. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2011.597084.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Maughan, D. R., Christiansen, E., Jenson, W. R., Olympia, D., & Clark, E. (2005). Behavioral parent training as a treatment for externalizing behaviors and disruptive behavior disorders: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 34, 267–286.Google Scholar
- McConnell, D., Breitkreuz, R., & Savage, A. (2011). Independent evaluation of the Triple P Positive Parenting Program in family support service settings. Child & Family Social Work. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2206.2011.00771.
- McTaggart, P., & Sanders, M. R. (2003). The transition to school project: Results from the classroom. Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 2, 1–12.Google Scholar
- Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2006). A review of parental engagement in parenting interventions and strategies to promote it. Journal of Children’s Services, 1, 29–40.Google Scholar
- Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39, 33–38.Google Scholar
- Sanders, M. R., Markie-Dadds, C., & Turner, K. T. (2003). Theoretical, scientific and clinical foundations of the Triple P Positive Parenting Program: A population approach to the promotion of parenting competence. Parenting Research and Practice Monograph, 1, 1–21.Google Scholar