Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Prevention Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 46, 1–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arpino, B., & Mealli, F. (2011). The specification of the propensity score in multilevel observational studies. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 55, 1770–1780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, J., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2000). Behavior problems and group-based parent education programs. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 21, 356–370.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, N. S., Lozano, P., & Rivara, F. P. (2007). The effectiveness of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in public middle schools: A controlled trial. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 266–274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, S. O., & Ichino, A. (2002). Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. The Stata Journal, 2, 358–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookhart, M. A., Schneeweiss, S., Rothman, K. J., Glynn, R. J., Avorn, J., & Sturmer, T. (2006). Variable selection for propensity score models. American Journal of Epidemiology, 163, 1149–1156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2005). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22, 31–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capaldi, D. M., Chamberlain, P., & Patterson, G. R. (1997). Ineffective discipline and conduct problems in males: Association, late adolescent outcomes, and prevention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2, 343–353.

    Article  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 

  • D’Agostino, R. B. (1998). Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 2265–2281.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Graaf, I., Onrust, S., Haverman, M., & Janssens, J. (2009). Helping families improve: An evaluation of two primary care approaches to parenting support in the Netherlands. Infant and Child Development, 18, 481–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehejia, R. H., & Wahba, S. (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 151–161.

    Article  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 

  • Dumas, J. E., Nissley-Tsiopinis, J., & Moreland, A. D. (2007). From intent to enrollment, attendance, and participation in preventive parenting groups. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumka, L. E., Grarza, C. A., Roosa, M. W., & Stoerzinger, H. D. (1997). Recruitment and retention of high-risk families into a preventive parent training intervention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 18, 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, M., & Ribeaud, D. (2005). A randomised field experiment to prevent violence: The Zurich intervention and prevention project at schools, ZIPPS. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 13, 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, M., & Ribeaud, D. (2007). Conducting a criminological survey in a culturally diverse context: Lessons from the Zurich project on the social development of children. European Journal of Criminology, 4, 271–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, M., Meidert, U., Ribeaud, D., & Malti, T. (2011). From enrollment to utilization – stages of parental engagement in a universal parent training program. Journal of Primary Prevention, 32, 83–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Essau, C. A., Sasagawa, S., & Frick, P. J. (2006). Psychometric properties of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 597–616.

    Article  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 

  • Friedman, L. S., & Richter, E. D. (2004). Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19, 51–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, D., Kumpfer, K., Polizzi-Fox, D., Wilson, D., Puryear, V., Beatty, P., & Vilmenay, M. (2006). The Strengthening Washington D.C. Families project: A randomized effectiveness trial of family-based prevention. Prevention Science, 7, 57–74.

    Article  PubMed  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 

  • Gross, D., Garvey, C., Julion, W., Fogg, L., Tucker, S., & Mokros, H. (2009). Efficacy of the Chicago Parent Program with low-income African American and Latino parents of young children. Prevention Science, 10, 54–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2010). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, S., Barth, R. P., & Gibbons, C. (2006). Propensity score matching strategies for evaluating substance abuse services for child welfare clients. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 357–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haggerty, K. P., Fleming, C. B., Lonczak, H. S., Oxford, M. L., Harachi, T. W., & Catalano, R. F. (2002). Predictors of participation in parenting workshops. Journal of Primary Prevention, 22, 375–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallfors, D., Cho, H., Sanchez, V., Khatapoush, S., Kim, H. M., & Bauer, D. (2006). Efficacy vs effectiveness trial results of an indicated “model” substance abuse program: Implications for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 2254–2259.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haviland, A., Nagin, D. S., & Rosenbaum, P. R. (2007). Combining propensity score matching and group-based trajectory analysis in an observational study. Psychological Methods, 12, 247–267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heinrichs, N., Bertram, H., Kuschel, A., & Hahlweg, K. (2005). Parent recruitment and retention in a universal prevention program for child behavior and emotional problems: Barriers to research and program participation. Prevention Science, 6, 275–286.

    Article  PubMed  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiscock, H., Bayer, J. K., Price, A., Ukoumunne, O. C., Rogers, S., & Wake, M. (2008). Universal parenting programme to prevent early childhood behavioural problems: Cluster randomised trial. BMJ, 336, 318–321.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jenson, J. M., & Dieterich, W. A. (2007). Effects of a skills-based prevention program on bullying and bully victimization among elementary school children. Prevention Science, 8, 285–296.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lacourse, E., Côté, S., Nagin, D. S., Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (2002). A longitudinal-experimental approach to testing theories of antisocial behavior development. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 909–924.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 

  • Lösel, F., Beelmann, A., Stemmler, M., & Jaursch, S. (2006). Probleme des Sozialverhaltens im Vorschulalter: Evaluation des Eltern- und Kindertrainings EFFEKT. Zeitschrift für klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 35, 127–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundahl, B., Risser, H. J., & Lovejoy, M. C. (2006). A meta-analysis of parent training: Moderators and follow-up effects. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 86–104.

    Article  PubMed  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 

  • Morgan, S. L., & Harding, D. J. (2006). Matching estimators of causal effects: Prospects and pitfalls in theory and practice. Sociological Methods Research, 35, 3–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nixon, R. D. V. (2002). Treatment of behavior problems in preschoolers: A review of parent training programs. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 525–546.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, C., & Heinrichs, N. (2008). A comprehensive meta-analysis of Triple P-Positive Parenting Program using hierarchical linear modeling: Effectiveness and moderating variables. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 11, 114–144.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, J. M., & Feldman, H. A. (2001). Statistical power for nonequivalent pretest-posttest designs: The impact of change-score versus ANCOVA models. Evaluation Review, 25, 3–28.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Onur, B. (2006). Too much ado about propensity score models? Comparing methods of propensity score matching. Value in Health, 9, 377–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perlis, R. H., Perlis, C. S., Wu, Y., Hwang, C., Joseph, M., & Nierenberg, A. A. (2005). Industry sponsorship and financial conflict of interest in the reporting of clinical trials in psychiatry. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 1957–1960.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Petrosino, A., & Soydan, H. (2005). The impact of program developers as evaluators on criminal recidivism: Results from meta-analyses of experimental and quasi-experimental research. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 435–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piquero, A., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., Tremblay, R. E., & Jennings, W. (2009). Effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 83–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyno, S. M., & McGrath, P. J. (2006). Predictors of parent training efficacy for child externalizing behavior problems - a meta-analytic review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 99–111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.

    Article  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 

  • Rubin, D. B., & Thomas, N. (1996). Matching using estimated propensity scores: Relating theory to practice. Biometrics, 52, 249–264.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, M. R. (1999). Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: Towards an empirically validated multilevel parenting and family support strategy for the prevention of behaviour and emotional problems in children. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2, 71–89.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, M. R., Turner, K. T., & Markie-Dadds, C. (2002). The development and dissemination of the Triple P—Positive Parenting Program: A multilevel, evidence-based system of parenting and family support. Prevention Science, 3, 173–189.

    Article  PubMed  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 

  • Serketich, W. J., & Dumas, J. E. (1996). The effectiveness of behavioral parent training to modify antisocial behavior in children: A meta-analysis. Behavior Therapy, 27, 171–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, K. K., Frick, P. J., & Wootton, J. (1996). Assessment of parenting practices in families of elementary school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 317–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. A., & Todd, P. E. (2005). Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators? Journal of Econometrics, 125, 305–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R. L. (2001). Randomized trial of brief family interventions for general populations: Adolescent substance use outcomes 4 years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 627.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2000). Modeling factors influencing enrollment in family-focused preventive intervention research. Prevention Science, 1, 213–225.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R. L., Kavanagh, K. A., & Dishion, T. J. (2002). Family-centered preventive intervention science: Toward benefits to larger populations of children, youth, and families. Prevention Science, 3, 145–152.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • St. Pierre, T. L., Osgood, D. W., Mincemoyer, C. C., Kaltreider, D. L., & Kauh, T. J. (2005). Results of an independent evaluation of project ALERT delivered in schools by cooperative extension. Prevention Science, 6, 305–317.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay, R. E., Loeber, R., Gagnon, C., Charlebois, P., Larivée, S., & LeBlanc, M. (1991). Disruptive boys with stable and unstable high fighting behavior patterns during junior elementary school. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 285–300.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vitaro, F., & Tremblay, R. E. (1994). Impact of a prevention program on aggressive children’s friendships and social adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22, 457–475.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Webster-Stratton, C., & Taylor, T. (2001). Nipping early risk factors in the bud: Preventing substance abuse, delinquency, and violence in adolescence through interventions targeted at young children (0–8 years). Prevention Science, 2, 165–192.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Manuel Eisner

  2. Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Daniel Nagin

  3. Department of Sociology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland

    Denis Ribeaud

  4. Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Mississauga, ON, Canada

    Tina Malti

Authors
  1. Manuel Eisner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Nagin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Denis Ribeaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tina Malti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Eisner.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 4

Table 4 Means and standard deviations of all dependent variables in the treated and matched untreated subgroups at pre (T1), post (T2), follow-up 1 (T3) and follow-up 2 (T4) assessments
Full size table

Table 5

Table 5 Means and standard deviations in the full sample at pre (T1), post (T2), follow-up 1 (T3) and follow-up 2 (T4) assessments
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eisner, M., Nagin, D., Ribeaud, D. et al. Effects of a Universal Parenting Program for Highly Adherent Parents: A Propensity Score Matching Approach. Prev Sci 13, 252–266 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-011-0266-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-011-0266-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation