Does Setting Goals Enhance Parenting Intervention Effects? A Field Experiment.

People who pursue approach goals (i.e., desired outcomes to be reached) tend to be more likely to achieve their goals than people who pursue avoidance goals (i.e., undesired outcomes to be prevented). We tested this premise in a brief preventive parenting intervention targeting parental praise to reduce disruptive child behavior. We also tested whether goal setting effects depend on behavior change phase (initiation versus maintenance) and parents' regulatory focus (high versus low promotion and prevention focus). Parents (N = 224; child age 4-8) were randomized to one of four conditions: an approach goal-enhanced or an avoidance goal-enhanced intervention condition, a no-goal intervention condition, or a waitlist control condition. Outcomes were parent-reported and audio-recorded positive parenting and disruptive child behavior. Results show that goal setting had very limited effects. Setting avoidance goals, not approach goals, improved self-reported positive parenting. However, goal setting did not enhance effects of parenting intervention on observed (i.e., audio-recorded) positive parenting and disruptive child behavior. Furthermore, goal setting effects depended neither on the phase of change, nor on parents' regulatory focus. This field experiment suggests that setting approach goals does not enhance the brief parenting intervention to improve parent-child interactions.

Longer-Term Outcomes of the Incredible Years Parenting Intervention.

Conduct problems can develop into behavior disorders and put children at risk for other mental health problems. Parenting interventions have been shown to successfully reduce conduct problems and are often expected to prevent the development of broader mental health problems. Few studies have evaluated the longer-term and broader effects of these interventions. To what extent are parenting intervention effects sustained in the years after the intervention? And do effects pertain to conduct problems specifically, or do they also affect broader aspects of children's mental health? We used a randomized controlled trial to assess the longer-term (2.5 years) effects of the Incredible Years parenting intervention on children's conduct problems in an indicated prevention setting (N = 387; 79% retention rate). Using a multi-method (survey and computerized tasks) and multi-informant (parents, teachers, and children) approach, we tested whether initial effects on conduct problems were sustained, and whether Incredible Years had broader effects on children's peer problems, emotional problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms, attention and inhibition deficits, and service use. Incredible Years, relative to control (no intervention), led to sustained reductions in parent-reported conduct problems (Cohen's d = 0.31), but not teacher- and child-reported conduct problems. There were no broader benefits: Incredible Years did not reduce children's peer problems, emotional problems, ADHD-symptoms, attention and inhibition deficits, or their service use. Improvements in parents' perceptions of child conduct problems sustained until 2.5 years later. Our findings do not show benefits of Incredible Years as a preventive intervention for children's broader mental health.

Co-occurring change in children's conduct problems and maternal depression: Latent class individual participant data meta-analysis of the Incredible Years parenting program.

Children vary in the extent to which they benefit from parenting programs for conduct problems. How does parental mental health change if children benefit less or more? We assessed whether changes in conduct problems and maternal depressive symptoms co-occur following participation in the Incredible Years parenting program. We integrated individual participant data from 10 randomized trials (N = 1280; children aged 2-10 years) and distinguished latent classes based on families' baseline and post-test conduct problems and maternal depressive symptoms, using repeated measures latent class analysis (RMLCA) and latent transition analysis (LTA). Classes differed mainly in severity of conduct problems and depression (RMLCA; 4 classes). Conduct problems reduced in all classes. Depressive symptoms did not change in most classes, except in a class of families where conduct problems and depression were particularly severe. Incredible Years led to a greater likelihood of families with particularly severe conduct problems and depression moving to a class with mild problems (LTA; 3 classes). Our findings suggest that for the majority of families, children's conduct problems reduce, but maternal depressive symptoms do not, suggesting relative independence, with the exception of families with severe depression and severe conduct problems where changes for the better do co-occur.

Meta-Analyses: Key Parenting Program Components for Disruptive Child Behavior.

OBJECTIVE: Parenting programs are the recommended strategy for the prevention and treatment of disruptive child behavior. Similar to most psychosocial interventions, it is unknown which components of parenting programs (ie, parenting techniques taught) actually contribute to program effects. Identifying what parents need to be taught to reduce disruptive child behavior can optimize intervention strategies, and refine theories on how parenting shapes disruptive child behavior. METHOD: In two meta-analyses, we updated the evidence-base for effectiveness of parenting programs delivered at various levels of prevention and treatment of disruptive behavior. We searched six databases (eg, PsycINFO, MEDLINE) for randomized trials and coded the parenting techniques taught in each program. We identified the techniques associated with program effects in general, and for prevention versus treatment, and immediate versus longer-term effects, specifically. RESULTS: Parenting program effects on disruptive behavior gradually increased per level of prevention (universal d = -0.21, selective d = -0.27, indicated d = -0.55) and treatment (d = -0.69) (Meta-Analysis 1: 154 trials, 398 effect sizes). Three of 26 parenting techniques were associated with stronger program effects: positive reinforcement, praise in particular, and natural/logical consequences. Several additional techniques (eg, relationship building and parental self-management) were associated with stronger effects in treatment but weaker effects in prevention. No techniques were associated with stronger longer-term effects (Meta-Analysis 2: 42 trials, 157 effect sizes). CONCLUSION: Positive reinforcement and nonviolent discipline techniques (eg, applying natural/logical consequences) seem to be key parenting program techniques to reduce disruptive child behavior. Additional techniques (eg, parental self-management skills) might improve program effects in treatment, but not in prevention.

Families Who Benefit and Families Who Do Not: Integrating Person- and Variable-Centered Analyses of Parenting Intervention Responses.

OBJECTIVE: Families with disruptive child behavior are typically referred to services based on children's behavior alone, rather than on underlying mechanisms of disruptive behavior. Yet, the presence of the precise mechanisms targeted by services might be essential for intervention success. We integrated person- and variable-centered approaches to test whether families with combined disruptive child behavior and harsh/inconsistent parenting indeed benefit most from a behavioral parenting intervention in indicated prevention context, compared to families with disruptive child behavior but less harsh/inconsistent parenting, and families with less severe disruptive behavior. METHOD: Families (N = 387) of children aged 4 to 8 years (disruptive behavior >75th percentile) participated in a randomized trial of the Incredible Years parenting intervention (Trial NTR3594, www.trialregister.nl). We identified different response trajectories and tested whether families with combined child and parenting difficulties had a higher probability of responding well, compared to families with only child difficulties or less severe difficulties. RESULTS: Most intervention group families (82%) showed a nonresponse trajectory. A minority (18%) showed a response trajectory with strong reductions in disruptive behavior (Cohen's d =1.45). As expected, families with both child and parenting difficulties were most likely to respond: 20% more than families with only child difficulties, and 40% more than families with less severe difficulties. CONCLUSION: Incredible Years, as an indicated prevention program, benefits mainly families in which the mechanisms targeted by the intervention (ie, harsh/inconsistent parenting) is actually present, rather than all families. Careful matching of children to services based on assessments of both child and parenting behavior seems critical for intervention success. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ORCHIDS: Study on Children's Genetic Susceptibility to Their Environment; https://www.trialregister.nl; 3594.

Dutch Norms for the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Comparisons with other Western Countries.

The Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) is one of the most widely used and well-validated parent rating scales for children's disruptive behavior. This screening instrument is a short, targetted and easy to implement inventory with good psychometric properties and is normed for different countries, among which the United States, Spain, Sweden and Norway. The ECBI has been successfully used for research and clinical purposes, in several countries including The Netherlands. To date, Dutch studies have relied on Scandinavian or US norm scores. However, this may be problematic because of cross-cultural differences in the degree to which certain behaviors are seen as problematic by parents. The main goal of this paper therefore was to obtain norm scores for The Netherlands among 6462 Dutch children aged 4 to 8 years (Mage = 6.37 years; SD = 1.32; 50.6% boys). In line with previous research, we found small differences on the mean sum scores across children of different ages (intensity scale) and gender (intensity and problem scale). Therefore, Dutch norm scores were provided age- and gender specific. Our results showed that disruptive behavior of children in the most rural areas was reported as occurring less frequently and was seen as less problematic by parents compared to the disruptive behavior of children in less rural areas. Finally, we found that Dutch norm scores on the ECBI were significantly lower than US norm scores, and significantly higher on the intensity scale (but not the problem scale) than Norwegian and Swedish norm scores.

Are Relationship Enhancement and Behavior Management "The Golden Couple" for Disruptive Child Behavior? Two Meta-analyses.

Parenting programs for reducing disruptive child behavior are built on two main perspectives: relationship enhancement (i.e., unconditional sensitivity diminishes disruptiveness) and behavior management (i.e., conditional rewards diminish disruptiveness). Two meta-analyses (156 and 41 RCTs; Ntotal  = 15,768; Mchildage  = 1-11 years) tested the theoretical model that integrating relationship enhancement with behavior management is superior to behavior management alone. The integrative approach showed no overall superiority. Relative to behavior management, the integrative approach was superior in treatment settings, but inferior in prevention settings (Meta-analysis 1). The integrative approach and behavior management approach did not have differential sustained effects up to 3 years after the program (Meta-analysis 2). Findings argue against current practice to implement the same parenting programs in treatment and prevention settings.

Sustained, fade-out or sleeper effects? A systematic review and meta-analysis of parenting interventions for disruptive child behavior.

Parenting interventions are known to reduce disruptive child behavior immediately post intervention. But it is largely unknown how reduced disruptive behavior develops in the months and years after the intervention. The present systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis examines whether improvements in disruptive child behavior after parenting intervention are maintained (i.e., sustained effects), fall back (i.e., fade-out effects), or increase further (i.e., sleeper effects). We identified 40 randomized controlled trials with follow-up assessments (up to three years) that generated 91 effect sizes. Mean effect size of post-intervention change was d=0.01, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.07], p=0.78. This lack of change suggests that parenting interventions lead to sustained effects on disruptive behavior. However, there was heterogeneity within and between trials, indicating that some interventions, or interventions under certain circumstances do show fade-out or sleeper effects. None of the moderators tested (i.e., length of follow-up and initial intervention success) explained this heterogeneity. We conclude that parenting interventions generally lead to sustained reductions in disruptive child behavior, at least until three year after intervention. Better understanding is needed of when and why sustainability is stronger in some cases than in others.