Introduction
Method
Search Strategy
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
Study Selection
Quality Rating
Effect Sizes
Results
Overview of Studies
Location
Author, country and sample size | Participant characteristics | Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria | Summary of intervention Control group | Number of sessions | Follow up? | Parental self-efficacy measure | Key findings | Effect sizes | Total CTAM score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Studies utilising task-specific parental self-efficacy measure
| |||||||||
Adamson et al. (2013) Australia 96 (94 mothers, 2 fathers) | Parents: intervention: 35.62 years, control 35.58 years Children: 1.5–6 years Average age: 3.14 years | Inclusion: Family concern about feeding and lived in areas where intervention was offered Exclusion: Families of children with medical conditions, those accessing other interventions, living outside the intervention area | Behavioural intervention; Triple P, Hassle free meal times Programme topics: strategies for successful mealtimes, promoting positive child behaviour, coping skills. Teaching methods: didactic instruction, active skills training, homework tasks. Waitlist control | 4 × 2 h group sessions plus 3 telephone sessions. | 6 month follow up for intervention group only | PTC | Greater behavioural parental self-efficacy reported by intervention group above control group; maintained at 6 month follow up. Clinically significantly change in PTC behaviour scores. No significant difference on PTC setting scale | PTC behaviour subscale 0.98 (large) | 82 |
aBreitenstein et al. (2012) USA 504 | Parents: Not stated Children: range not stated. Average age: 2.81 years | Inclusion: Latino or African American parents Exclusion: Not stated | Cognitive behavioural intervention; Chicago Parent Program (based on Incredible Years Program; adapted for African American and Latino parents) Programme topics: building parent–child relationships, child behavioural management, stress management, problem solving skills. Teaching methods: video vignettes to stimulate discussion and problem solving. Study 1: Waitlist control Study 2: TAU | 12 × 2 h group sessions | 6 and 12 month follow ups | TCQ | Significant improvement in parental self-efficacy in intervention group compared to control group post-intervention. Effects were maintained for intervention group, but no difference between groups at follow ups; indicating the control group also improved over time. Significant effect of race on results; Latino parents reported greater improvements in parental self-efficacy. | −0.01 (no effect) | 74 |
Gross et al. (1995) USA 24 families | Mothers: 32 years Fathers 33 years Children: 24–36 months Average age: not stated | Inclusion: Child aged between 24 and 36 months. Both parents willing to participate in program. Questionnaires completed at pre, post and follow up. Child scores greater than 125 on intensity scale of ECBI or greater than 10 on the problem scale. Exclusion: Not stated | Cognitive behavioural intervention; Webster-Stratton Incredible Years Programme topics: how to play with a child, use of praise and rewards, limit setting, and managing misbehaviour. Teaching methods: Video-tape vignettes, group discussion and problem solving, homework tasks. Control and dropout group | 10 × 2 h weekly sessions. | 1 year follow up (Tucker et al. 1998 paper) | TCQ | Mothers in intervention group reported significantly higher parental self-efficacy following intervention compared to control groups. No significant effect was found for fathers. Correlations showed that increases in maternal self-efficacy were significantly related to improvements in five mother–child outcomes | 0.68 (medium) | 57 |
aTucker et al. (1998) Long term follow up of Gross et al. (1995) | Significant changes in maternal self-efficacy were maintained at 3 months and 1 year post follow up in the intervention group No significant differences were seen amongst fathers | N/A | N/A | ||||||
Gross et al. (2003) USA 264 | Parents: Not stated Children: 2–3 years Average age: Not stated | Inclusion: Legal guardian of 2–3 year old. Completed all baseline assessments Exclusion: Not stated | Cognitive behavioural intervention; Webster-Stratton Incredible Years BASIC program Programme topics: child-directed play, praise and rewards, effective limit setting, handling misbehaviour and problem solving. Weekly homework assignments. Teaching methods: video vignettes, group discussion. Teacher training, no intervention, teacher training and parenting group | 12 × 2 h weekly sessions. | 1 year follow up | TCQ | Both parent training conditions reported together against both control conditions. Growth curve modelling used to report 1 year follow up results. No significant difference post-intervention. Parental self-efficacy significantly increased in parent training groups at 1 year follow up compared to control groups Parent and teacher group showed no enhanced improvements over parent training alone | 0.42 (medium) | 80 |
Gross et al. (2009) USA 292 | Parents: Not stated Children: 2–4 years Average age: not stated | Inclusion: Day centre had over 90 % of enrolled families meeting income eligibility requirements for subsidised child care. Legal guardian of 2–4 year old. Participants must speak English. Exclusion: Not stated | Cognitive behavioural intervention; Chicago Parent Program Programme topics: praise and rewards, family traditions, limit setting and consequences, stress management and problem solving skills. Teaching methods: video vignettes, group discussions, homework assignments. Waitlist control | 11 × 2 h weekly sessions plus 1 booster session 2 months after 11th session | Immediate post data not reported. 1 year follow up reported | TCQ | Immediate self-efficacy results not stated. Growth curve modelling used to report 1 year follow up results. No effect of intervention on parental self-efficacy. But did find a dosage effect. Parents who attended the most sessions showed biggest improvements in self-efficacy. But no random assignment to dosage effect | Could not be calculated | 78 |
Joachim et al. (2010) Australia 46 (96 % mothers) | Parents: 33.78 years Children: 2–6 years. Average age: 3 years | Inclusion: Parents of children 2–6 showing behaviour problems during shopping trips. Exclusion: Child had a disability and or chronic illness or if the parents were currently consulting a professional for child behaviour difficulties. | Behavioural intervention, Triple P, hassle free shopping Topics covered: engaging children in shopping, using shopping to teach appropriate behaviour and management strategies. Teaching methods: video modelling, problem solving, homework tasks and planned activity routines. Waitlist control | 1 × 2 h brief discussion group | 6 month follow up for intervention group only | PTC | Intervention group reported significantly higher parental self-efficacy on both the behavioural and setting scales of PTC compared to control group. The improvements were maintained at 6 month follow up. The results continued to be significant when an intention to treat analysis was completed | PTC: Behaviour subscale 1.05 (large) Setting subscale 1.25 (large) | 43 |
Landy and Menna (2006) Canada 35 | Mothers: 18–>46 years Children: 3–6 years. Average age: 4.5 years | Inclusion: Mothers of aggressive children Exclusion: Children with serious developmental delay and mothers and children with any medical condition or physical disability. | Psychodynamic intervention; HEAR program (Helping Encourage Affect Regulation) Programme topics: child development, parent’s experience of being parented, parent–child interactions, parent’s view of self and others. Teaching methods: didactic teaching, role plays, group discussion and homework tasks. Waitlist control | 15 × 2 h weekly group. | No follow up | TCQ | Significant effect of intervention on parental self-efficacy, with parents who completed the intervention group reporting significantly greater parental self-efficacy than the control group | 0.52 (medium) | 53 |
Morawska et al. (2011) Australia 66 mothers 1 father | Mothers: 36.30 Father: 39.67 Children: 2–5 years Average age: 3.63 years | Inclusion: Living in Brisbane area Exclusion: Currently seeing a psychologist, do not meet age criteria | Behavioural intervention; Triple P Programme topics: reasons for disobedience, encouraging good behaviour and managing disobedience. Teaching methods: didactic teaching, video vignettes, group discussions. Waitlist control | 1 × 2 h discussion group. | 6 month follow up for intervention group only | PTC | Statistically significant changes in the intervention group compared to control group. Results significant when intention to treat analysis conducted. Increase in parental self-efficacy was maintained for intervention group at 6-month follow up. Control group not assessed at 6 months | PTC behaviour subscale 1.01 (large) | 56 |
Morawska et al. (2014) Australia 86 parents | Intervention: Mothers: 35.88 Fathers: 38.06 Control: Mothers:37.00 Fathers: 39.97 Children: 2–5 years. Average age: 3.72 years | Inclusion: Parents of children aged 2–5 experiencing feeding and/or mealtime difficulties Exclusion: Receiving professional help for child, parental or marital problems. Child had disability or developmental disorder. Parent had intellectual disability or hearing impairment. | Behavioural intervention; Hassle-free mealtimes Triple P Programme Topics: psycho-education on mealtime problems, parenting traps, building routines, behavioural strategies, consistent discipline. Teaching methods: group discussion, didactic instruction, video modelling, active skills training, homework tasks Waitlist control | 1 × 2 h discussion group | 6 month follow up for intervention group only | CAPES | Significant increase post-intervention in both mealtime specific and general parental self-efficacy in the intervention group compared to the control group. Increase in general parental self-efficacy maintained at 6 months for intervention group | 0.81 (large) | 79 |
Wolfson et al. (1992) USA 60 families | Parents: 28.7 years Children: new-borns | Inclusion: Gestational age of at least 38 weeks. Birth weight of 5 lb or more. Apgar score of at least 6 at 5 min post birth. No gross congenital abnormalities or serious health problems. Single birth Exclusion: Not stated | Behavioural intervention; program name not stated Programme topics: infant sleep and creating good sleep habits. Teaching methods: didactic teaching, hand-outs, group discussion, daily practice diaries. Waitlist control | 4 × 1–1.5 h weekly sessions: 2 pre-natal sessions and 2 post-natal sessions. | No post intervention data, Pre data compared to 4 month follow up | Adapted parental efficacy measure | Both groups showed increased parental self-efficacy from pre to post-intervention. However intervention group improved significantly more than control group. anb first rating taken at pre-birth | 0.93 (large) | 45 |
Studies using general parental self-efficacy measures
| |||||||||
Cunningham et al. (1995) Canada 150 | Parents: Not stated Children: Range not stated Average age: 53 months | Inclusion: Child scored above 1.5 SD for parental concerns about child behaviour Exclusion: Not stated | Behavioural intervention; program name not stated Programme topics: common child management problems and parenting errors. Teaching methods: videotapes, discussion, roleplay, homework tasks. Individual treatment and wait list control | 12 × 2 h weekly sessions. | 6 month follow up | PSOC | Individual therapy significantly improved parental self-efficacy compared to the group intervention and waitlist control post-intervention. At 6 months, group intervention showed greatest increase from baseline; however average parental self-efficacy was equivalent across all conditions at follow up | −0.03 (no effect) | 80 |
Hayes et al. (2008) Australia 118 | Parents: 31.84 years Children: 7–40 months Average age: 8.7 months | Inclusion: Not stated Exclusion: Insufficient English skills | Behavioural intervention; program name not stated. Programme topics: settling, sleeping difficulties, breastfeeding, weaning, difficult behaviour and self-care. Teaching methods: lectures, group discussions, staff supported practice. Waitlist control | 1 × 6 h intervention. | 6 week follow up | PSOC | Significant increase in parent sense of competency in intervention group compared to waitlist control. This was maintained for intervention group 6 weeks post-intervention | 0.74 (medium) | 66 |
Miller-Heyl et al. (1998) USA 797 | Mothers: 29.7 years Fathers: 31.5 years Children: 2–5 years Average age: 3.15 years | Inclusion: Not stated Exclusion: Not stated | Cognitive behavioural intervention; DARE to be you program Programme topics: increasing parental self-efficacy and locus of control, decision making, improving communication, stress management, psycho-education on developmental norms. Teaching methods: experiential activities, group discussions, didactic teaching, joint parent–child activities. Waitlist control | 10–12 × 2.5 h weekly sessions. | 1 and 2 year follow up. | SPPR | No immediate post-test results reported. At 1 and 2 year follow ups there was a significant increase in parental self-efficacy in the intervention group compared to the control group Parents who felt the least confident at the beginning benefitted the most. Changes in parental self-efficacy were related to greater nurturing child rearing. practises | Could not be calculated | 42 |
Pisterman et al. (1992) Canada 91 | Parents: Not stated Children: 3–6 years. Average age: 49 months | Inclusion: Child aged between 3–6 and not attending grade 1 school. Adequate English language ability measured by Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Compliance to total parental commands less than 60 %. In study 2; less than 163 s on task in a standardised parent supervised task. Exclusion: Not stated | Behavioural intervention; program name not stated Study 1 focused only on compliance training, while study two included and attention span training as well. Programme topics: ADDH psycho-education, behaviour management skills. Teaching methods: role-play, modelling and homework assignments. Waitlist control | 12 weekly sessions; length not stated. | 3 month follow up | PSOC | Significant increase in parental self-efficacy for both intervention groups compared to the control groups. Change independent of changes in parent and child behaviour but were associated with reductions in perceived behaviour problems | 0.26 (small) | 45 |
Sheeber and Johnson (1994) USA 40 | Mothers: 34 years Children: 3–5 years. Average age: not stated | Inclusion: Child showed evidence of difficult temperament–rated by parent. Exclusion: Clinical judgement if behaviour deemed due to recent stressor or psychopathology. | Temperament based intervention; name not stated. Programme topics: psycho-education on child temperament, management of temperament-related behaviour issues. Teaching methods: not stated. Waitlist control | 9 × 1.5–2 h weekly sessions. | 8 week follow up | PSI | Improvement in parental self-efficacy in intervention group compared to control group, maintained at follow up. Clinically significant change in parental self-efficacy for intervention group at post treatment although this was not maintained at follow up | −0.64 (medium) Reduction = improvement | 38 |
Design
Sample Characteristics
Parental Self-efficacy Measures
Task-Specific Measures
General Measures
Intervention Summary
Length of Intervention
Methodological Quality
Study | Sample (max 10) | Allocation (max 16) | Assessment (max 32) | Control group (max 16) | Analysis (max 15) | Active treatment (max 11) | Total score (max 100) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Studies utilising task specific parental self-efficacy measure
| |||||||
Adamson et al. (2013) |
5
|
16
|
29
|
6
|
15
|
11
|
82
|
Breitenstein et al. (2012) |
10
|
10
|
26
|
6
|
11
|
11
|
74
|
Gross et al. (1995) | 0 | 10 | 26 | 6 | 9 | 6 | 57 |
Gross et al. (2003) |
10
|
10
|
29
|
16
|
9
|
6
|
80
|
Gross et al. (2009) |
10
|
10
|
26
|
6
|
15
|
11
|
78
|
Joachim et al. (2010) | 0 | 13 | 6 | 6 | 15 | 3 | 43 |
Landy and Menna (2006) | 0 | 10 | 26 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 53 |
Morawska et al. (2011) | 5 | 13 | 6 | 6 | 15 | 11 | 56 |
Morawska et al. (2014) |
5
|
16
|
26
|
6
|
15
|
11
|
79
|
Wolfson et al. (1992) | 7 | 10 | 3 | 10 | 9 | 6 | 35 |
Studies using general parental self-efficacy measures
| |||||||
Cunningham et al. (1995) |
10
|
10
|
29
|
16
|
9
|
6
|
80
|
Hayes et al. (2008) |
7
|
16
|
16
|
6
|
15
|
6
|
66
|
Miller-Heyl et al. (1998) | 5 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 9 | 6 | 42 |
Pisterman et al. (1992) | 5 | 10 | 16 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 45 |
Sheeber and Johnson (1994) | 0 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 11 | 38 |