Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Analysis of Training, Generalization, and Maintenance Effects of Primary Care Triple P for Parents of Preschool-Aged Children with Disruptive Behavior

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Child Psychiatry & Human Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 16 October 2014

Abstract

A brief primary care intervention for parents of preschool-aged children with disruptive behavior was assessed using a multiple probe design. Primary Care Triple P, a four session behavioral intervention was sequentially introduced within a multiple probe format to each of 9 families to a total of 10 children aged between 3 and 7 years (males = 4, females = 6). Independent observations of parent-child interaction in the home revealed that the intervention was associated with lower levels of child disruptive behavior both in a target training setting and in various generalization settings. Parent report data also confirmed there were significant reductions in intensity and frequency of disruptive behavior, an increase in task specific parental self-efficacy, improved scores on the Parent Experience Survey, and high levels of consumer satisfaction. All short-term intervention effects were maintained at four-month follow-up. Implications for the delivery of brief interventions to prevent conduct problems 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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Patterson G (1982) A social learning approach to family intervention: III. Coercive family process. Castalia, Eugene

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kazdin A (1991) Effectiveness of psychotherapy with children and adolescents. J Consult Clin Psyc 59:785–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. McMahon R, Wells K (1998) Conduct problems. In: Barkley R (ed) Treatment of childhood disorders, 2nd edn. The Guilford Press, New York, pp 111–207

    Google Scholar 

  4. Patterson G, Reid J, Dishion T (1992) Antisocial boys. Castalia, Eugene

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sanders M, Tully L, Baade P, Lynch M, Heywood A, Pollard G, Youlden D (1999) A survey of parenting practices in Queensland: implications for mental health promotion. Health Promot J Aust 9:112–121

    Google Scholar 

  6. Zubrick S, Ward K, Silburn S, Lawrence D, Williams A, Blair E, Robertson D, Sanders M (2005) Prevention of child behavior problems through universal implementation of a group behavioral family intervention. Prev Sci 6:287–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sanders M (2008) The Triple P-Positive Parenting Program as a public health approach to strengthening parenting. J Fam Psychol 22(4):506–517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Taylor T, Biglan A (1998) Behavioral family interventions for improving child-rearing: a review of the literature for clinicians and policy makers. Clin Child Fam Psych 1:41–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sanders M, Turner K, 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. Prev Sci 3:173–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. de Graaf I, Speetjens P, Smit F, de Wolff M, Tavecchio L (2009) Effectiveness of the Triple P Positive Parenting Program on parenting: a meta-analysis. Fam Relat 57:553–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. de Graaf I, Speetjens P, Smit F, de Wolff M, Tavecchio L (2008) Effectiveness of the Triple P Positive Parenting Program on behavioral problems in children: a meta-analysis. Behav Modif 32(5):714–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nowak C, Heinrichs N (2008) A comprehensive meta-analysis of Triple P-Positive Parenting Program using hierarchical linear modeling: effectiveness and moderating variables. Clin Child Fam Psych 11:114–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Thomas R, Zimmer-Gembeck M (2007) Behavioral outcomes of parent-child interaction therapy and Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: a review and meta-analysis. J Abnorm Child Psyc 35:475–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Turner K, Sanders M (2006) Help when it’s needed first: a controlled evaluation of brief, preventive behavioral family intervention in a primary care setting. Behav Ther 37(2):131–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bower P, Garralda E, Kramer T, Harrington R, Sibbald B (2001) The treatment of child and adolescent mental health problems in primary care: a systematic review. Fam Pract 18:373–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Giel R, Koeter M, Ormel J (1990) Detection and referral of primary-care patients with mental health problems: the second and third filter. In: Goldberg D, Tantam D (eds) The public health impact of mental disorder. Hogrefe and Huber, Toronto, pp 25–34

    Google Scholar 

  17. Vasquez-Barquero J (1990) Mental health in primary care settings. In: Goldberg D, Tantam D (eds) The public health impact of mental disorder. Hogrefe and Huber, Toronto, pp 35–44

    Google Scholar 

  18. Nicholson J, French M, Oldenberg B, Connelly L (1997) Evaluation of the mental health service in rural and remote South West Queensland: final report for the Southern Queensland rural division of general practice. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sanders M, Dadds M (1982) The effects of planned activities and child management procedures in parent training: an analysis of setting generality. Behav Ther 13:452–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sanders M, Glynn T (1981) Training parents in behavioral self-management: an analysis of generalization and maintenance. J Appl Behav Anal 14:223–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sanders M, Christensen A (1985) A comparison of the effects of child management and planned activities training in five parenting environments. J Abnorm Child Psych 13(1):101–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Huynen K, Lutzker J, Bigelow K, Touchette P (1996) Planned activities training for mothers of children with developmental disabilities: community generalization and follow-up. Behav Modif 20:406–427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Powers S, Roberts M (1995) Simulation training with parents of oppositional children: preliminary findings. J Clin Child Psychol 24(1):89–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sanders M, James J (1983) The modification of parent behavior: a review of generalization and maintenance. Behav Modif 7(1):3–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stokes T, Baer D (1977) An implicit technology of generalization. J Appl Behav Anal 10(2):349–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Eyberg S, Pincus D (1999) Eyberg child behavior inventory and Sutter-Eyberg student behavior inventory—revised: professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa

    Google Scholar 

  27. Turner K, Sanders M, Markie-Dadds C (1999) Practitioner’s manual for primary care Triple P. Families International Publishing, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  28. Turner K, Markie-Dadds C, Sanders M (1999) Consultation flip chart for primary care Triple P. Families International Publishing, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sanders M, Markie-Dadds C, Turner K (1996) Positive parenting. Families International Publishing, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  30. Turner K, Markie-Dadds C, Sanders M (1996) Triple P tip sheet series for toddlers. Families International Publishing, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  31. Turner K, Markie-Dadds C, Sanders M (1996) Triple P tip sheet series for preschoolers. Families International Publishing, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sanders M, Markie-Dadds C, Turner K (1996) Every parent’s survival guide [Videotape and booklet]. Families International, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  33. Horner R, Baer D (1978) Multiple-probe technique: a variation of the multiple baseline. J Appl Behav Anal 11(1):189–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sanders M, Waugh L, Tully L, Hynes K (1996) The revised family observation schedule, 3rd ed. Parenting and Family Support Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane

  35. Sanders M, Woolley M (2005) The relationship between maternal self-efficacy and parenting practices: implications for parent training. Child Care Hlth Dev 31(1):65–73

    Google Scholar 

  36. Garton A, Zubrick S, Silburn S (1995) The Western Australian survey: a pilot study. Aust NZ J Psychiat 29(1):48–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Eyberg S (1993) Consumer satisfaction measures for assessing parent training programs. In: Van de Creek L, Knapp S, Jackson T (eds) Innovations in clinical practice: a source book. Professional Resource Press, Sarasota, pp 377–382

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sanders M, Markie-Dadds C, Tully L, Bor W (2000) The Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: a comparison of enhanced, standard, and self-directed behavioral family intervention for parents of children with early onset conduct problems. J Consult Clin Psych 68:624–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Prinz R, Sanders M, Shapiro C, Whitaker D, Lutzker J (2009) Population-based prevention of child maltreatment: the US Triple P system population trial. Prev Sci 10(1):1–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research described in this paper was supported by grants U17/CCU422317 and 1R18CE001340 to Prinz and Sanders from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Behavioral Sciences, Inc., Lawrence, KS, USA

    Cynthia L. Boyle

  2. Parenting and Family Support Center, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Matthew R. Sanders

  3. Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    John R. Lutzker & Daniel J. Whitaker

  4. University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

    Ronald J. Prinz & Cheri Shapiro

Authors
  1. Cynthia L. Boyle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew R. Sanders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John R. Lutzker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ronald J. Prinz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cheri Shapiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Daniel J. Whitaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew R. Sanders.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10578-014-0502-2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boyle, C.L., Sanders, M.R., Lutzker, J.R. et al. An Analysis of Training, Generalization, and Maintenance Effects of Primary Care Triple P for Parents of Preschool-Aged Children with Disruptive Behavior. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 41, 114–131 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-009-0156-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-009-0156-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation