Utilizing Benchmarking to Study the Effectiveness of Parent–Child Interaction Therapy Implemented in a Community Setting

Parent–Child Interaction Therapy: current perspectives

“… 30 , 42 One study found that in a population of abusive parents, negative parental reactions were common despite the lack of child misbehavior. 23 However, PCIT produced rapid changes in parenting practices for this sample, similar to those experienced by nonabusive parents. 23 Currently, research supports the use of motivational interviewing principles in addition to standard PCIT for treating abusive families.…”

“… 23 However, PCIT produced rapid changes in parenting practices for this sample, similar to those experienced by nonabusive parents. 23 Currently, research supports the use of motivational interviewing principles in addition to standard PCIT for treating abusive families. 42 This treatment combination decreases recidivism in the child welfare sector compared with treatment as usual.…”

“… 15 – 18 Similar positive outcomes have been noted with PCIT delivered in child welfare settings 19 – 22 and with in-home delivery. 23 , 24 More novel treatment settings for PCIT have included a time-limited modified version delivered in a managed care company, 25 a PCIT-based parenting program for incarcerated women, 26 PCIT delivered in a domestic violence shelter, 27 and group-based PCIT delivered by a community outreach agency. 28 Each of these studies noted similar decreases in child behavior problems and increases in positive parenting skills.…”

Caregiver Use of the Core Components of Technology-Enhanced Helping the Noncompliant Child: A Case Series Analysis of Low-Income Families

“…Treatment response is characterized by comparing the pre-post treatment ECBI (Eyberg & Pincus, 1999) change score in the current study to the aggregated pre-post ECBI change scores published in prior studies of standard BPT programs (see Self-Brown et al, 2012; Ware et al, 2008 for meta-analyses). Using procedures described by others in pilot services research, including those in research and development of technology-enhanced service delivery approaches (e.g., Andreasen et al, 2005; Comer et al, 2014; Löwe, Unützer, Callahan, Perkins, & Kroenke, 2004), treatment response status was defined by: (a) Full treatment responders [i.e., ECBI Intensity and Problem scores were above the clinically significant level at baseline (i.e., Intensity Score at or above 131 and Problem Score at or above 15) and at postassessment had improvement scores at or above one standard deviation ( SD = 19.52 Intensity, SD = 5.39 Problem) of the aggregated average change score of published studies (i.e., a 44 point improvement on the Intensity score and a 13 point improvement on the Problem score)]; (b) Partial treatment responders [i.e., ECBI Intensity and Problem scores within one standard deviation above the aggregated change score (i.e., scores fall between the comparison mean change score and one standard deviation of the score) or, change scores between 25–43 on the Intensity scale and change scores between 8–12 on the Problem scale]; and (c) Minimal treatment responders [i.e., ECBI Intensity and Problem scores below the mean change score for the comparison studies (i.e., Intensity scores < 25 and Problem scores < 8)].…”

Intentional research design in implementation science: implications for the use of nomothetic and idiographic assessment

“…For instance, Glisson and colleagues [37] found that agencies with more positive OSC profiles sustain new practices for longer than agencies with less favorable organizational climates. Research designs intended to evaluate interunit differences may use instruments with established norms to make nomothetic comparisons between providers or agencies exposed to different implementation approaches [38,39] or to collect and compare benchmarking data from one implementation site against randomized controlled trial data [40].…”