Effects of a Universal Parenting Program for Highly Adherent Parents: A Propensity Score Matching Approach

Abstract

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 selfreport 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. Abstract This paper examines the effectiveness of a groupbased 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 selfreport data were collected at baseline, post, and two followup 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.

Parent education interventions designed to support the transition to parenthood: A realist review

“…First, according to our analysis, there are no pre-existing parent education programmes that have been demonstrated to meet the needs of parents on a universal level. This observation is consistent with previous reviews, such as by Eisner et al (2012) and Wilson et al (2012). As noted by Svensson et al (2006), one major issue with the parent education programmes we reviewed is that the programme content was not based on a community-level analysis of participants' needs.…”

Evidence comes by replication, but needs differentiation: the reproducibility issue in science and its relevance for criminology

“…For example, whereas Sanders et al (2000) reported desirable effects of their Triple-P parenting program in Australia and a meta-analysis of Triple-P researchers showed mean positive outcomes (Nowak and Heinrichs 2008), independent research found no effect in Switzerland (Eisner et al 2012). Eisner (2014) also questioned the results of a large-scale implementation of Triple-P in the United States and Sanders (2015) published a paper on how to deal with conflicts of interest.…”

Two-Year Findings from a National Effectiveness Trial: Effectiveness of Behavioral and Non-Behavioral Parenting Programs

“…These studies differed in several methodological aspects, such as design, participant characteristics, measures, choice of primary reporters, and the definitions of post-test and follow-up time-points. Possibly related to these differences, within-group effect sizes describing changes from baseline to follow-up varied considerably among the studies, from no significant effect (Eisner et al 2012;Malti et al 2011), small effect (DeGarmo et al 2004Losel and Stemmler 2012) to medium (Gardner et al 2006;Hahlweg et al 2010;Zubrick et al 2005) and large effects (Bywater et al 2009;Wolchik et al 2002). Other studies have reported results in a way that baseline to follow-up effect sizes cannot be calculated (e.g., Webster-Stratton et al 2011).…”

“…We conducted an overview of group-based PT programs with longer-term (18 months or more) follow-ups, and found nine randomized or quasi-randomized evaluations of standalone PT programs (i.e., with no other treatment component, such as a child or teacher directed component, than the parent training part) with a follow-up range between 18 months and 12 years (Bywater et al 2009;DeGarmo et al 2004;Eisner et al 2012;Gardner et al 2006;Hahlweg et al 2010;Losel and Stemmler 2012;Malti et al 2011;Wolchik et al 2002;Zubrick et al 2005). These studies differed in several methodological aspects, such as design, participant characteristics, measures, choice of primary reporters, and the definitions of post-test and follow-up time-points.…”