Effectiveness of Parent—Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) Among Chinese Families

Abstract

Objective: This study examined the effectiveness of Parent—Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) among Chinese parents and children in Hong Kong with significant behavior problems. Method: The participants (intervention group, 48; comparison group, 62) completed questionnaires on child behavior problems and parenting stress before and after intervention. Results: Univariate analysis of covariance, with preintervention scores as covariates, showed the intervention group participants reported fewer child behavior problems and parenting stress postintervention than the comparison group participants. The observational data demonstrated a decrease in inappropriate child-management strategies and an increase in positive parenting practices following intervention. The intervention group participants generally maintained the changes 3 to 6 months after program completion. Conclusions: Cultural issues related to PCIT and culturally appropriate intervention strategies were discussed.

Acceptability of Behavioral Family Therapy among Caregivers in China

“…This finding is consistent with data from European American caregivers (e.g., Cross-Calvert and McMahon 1987;Jones et al 1998). However, this finding contradicts the reports that Chinese parents in Hong Kong are hesitant to use praise (Ho et al 1999;Leung et al 2009). Results from current study suggest that mainland Chinese caregivers find contingent praise and responsive play at home to be acceptable parenting strategies.…”

“…It was predicted that the BFT components would be perceived as acceptable, since increasing child compliance is a treatment goal consistent with Chinese culture. Additionally, mainland Chinese caregivers might perceive differential attention (i.e., contingent praise) as a less acceptable strategy to manage child disruptive behavior, since Chinese parents in Hong Kong were found to be hesitant to use praise in therapy (Ho et al 1999;Leung et al 2009). In contrast, the BFT control procedures (Stage II) might be perceived as more acceptable than praise and play components (Stage I), since Chinese families place strong emphasis on conformity, obedience, and discipline (Ho 1986).…”

Transporting Evidence-Based Parenting Programs for Child Problem Behavior (Age 3–10) Between Countries: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The primary caregiver was normally the mother, and only rarely was outcome data reported from fathers. Socioeconomic status (SES) of participants varied widely among studies: Four described participant families as low income (Gardner et al, 2006;Hutchings et al, 2007;Scott et al, 2001), and four as median income to low income or status (Leung & Tsang, 2012;Leung, Tsang, Heung, & Yiu, 2009;Ogden & Hagen, 2008;Sigmarsdóttir, Degarmo, Forgatch, & GuÞmundsdóttir, 2013). Two studies described families as middle to high status (Jalali, Shaeeri, Tahmasian, & Pourahmadi, 2009;Leung et al, 2003).…”

“…Eleven trials used a waitlist control; two used no-intervention control groups (Jalali et al, 2009;Leung et al, 2009); and three, TAU (Ogden & Hagen, 2008;Posthumus et al, 2012;Sigmarsdó ttir et al, 2013). The three studies with a TAU condition provided descriptions of the services offered to control participants but few details on dosage or nature of treatment.…”

“…Direct observational measures of parent and child behavior are considered important for validating parent-report data (Aspland & Gardner, 2003). Only four of the RCTs in this review used observational measures of child behavior, and we meta-analyzed them using pooled outcomes to further assess overall effec- There were three nonrandomized trials, two using ECBI scales (Leung et al, 2009;Posthumus et al, 2012) and one the SDQ Conduct Scale (Scott et al, 2001), with a total FIGURE 2 Effect sizes for pooled outcome data of randomized controlled trials, using change scores based on Eyberg Child Behavior Inventoryintensity scores or Child Behavior Checklist. Subgroup analyses 1.…”