Predictors of Group Leaders’ Perceptions of Parents’ Initial and Dynamic Engagement in a Family Preventive Intervention
- 206 Downloads
Attendance and participant engagement are two consistent predictors of the efficacy of preventive interventions. Although both are typically measured and analyzed as static factors, evidence indicates patterns of attendance and participant engagement change over the course of intervention. Understanding parent characteristics that predict engagement may inform strategies to maximize parents’ involvement thereby increasing intervention uptake and improving effects. This study examined whether parents’ baseline characteristics predicted their engagement in a family-based intervention. The study was conducted with 515 caregivers participating in a randomized comparative trial testing the efficacy of The Mindfulness-Enhanced Strengthening Families Program 10-14 (MSFP 10-14) and The Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10-14 (SFP 10-14). Facilitator ratings were used to measure parent engagement. Results indicated generally high levels of initial engagement with small, but a significant linear increase across the intervention. Parental education level and involvement with their youth predicted engagement in the first session, while parents’ marital/relationship status, avoidance of conflict with their youth, involvement with their youth, and perceived parent-youth relationship quality at baseline predicted change in engagement. Results highlight engagement as a dynamic construct that changes over time and indicates potential variables that may help identify parents that may need support engaging in this intervention.
KeywordsParticipant engagement Participation Parent training Prevention program Intervention impact
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This project was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse through a grant (R01DA026217) awarded to the first author. The second author’s efforts are facilitated by the National Institute on Drug Abuse through a training grant (F31DA038409).
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
Pennsylvania State University’s IRB approved this study. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Achenbach, T. M. (1994). Child behavior checklist and related instruments. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment (pp. 517–549). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Bamberger, K.T., & Coatsworth, J.D. (2013). An expanded conceptual model of participant engagement for prevention and intervention research. Poster presented at the Society for Prevention Research 21st Annual Conference in San Francisco, CA. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2005.4880
- Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage focus editions, 154, 136–136.Google Scholar
- Clarke, A. T., Marshall, S. A., Mautone, J. A., Soffer, S. L., Jones, H. A., Costigan, T. E., et al. (2015). Parent attendance and homework adherence predict response to a family-school intervention for children with ADHD. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44, 58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dishion, T. J., & Kavanagh, K. (2003). Intervening in adolescent problem behavior: A family-centered approach (p. 2003). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Dishion T. J., & Snyder, J. J. (2015). The Oxford handbook of coercive relationship dynamics. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
- Glasgow, R. E., Klesges, L. M., Dzewaltowski, D. A., Bull, S. S., & Estabrooks, P. (2004). The future of health behavior change research: What is needed to improve translation of research into health promotion practice? Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 27, 3–12.Google Scholar
- Mauricio, A. M., Tien, J.-Y., Gonzalez, N. A., Millsap, R. E., Dumka, L. A., & Berkel, K. (2014). Participation patterns among Mexican-American parents enrolled in a universal intervention and their association with child externalizing outcomes American Journal of Community Psychology, 54, 370–383.Google Scholar
- Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (1991). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change addictive behavior. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Molgaard, V., Kumpfer, K. L., & Fleming, E. (2001). The Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10-14; a video-based curriculum. Ames: Iowa State University Extension.Google Scholar
- Muthén, B. (2001). Second-generation structural equation modeling with a combination of categorical and continuous latent variables: New opportunities for latent class/latent growth modeling. In L. M. Collins, & A. Sayer (Eds.), New methods for the analysis of change (pp. 291–322). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- Nix, R. L., Bierman, K. L., McMahon, R. J., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2009). How attendance and quality of participation affect treatment response to parent management training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 429–438. doi: 10.1037/a0015028.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Patterson, G., & Chamberlain, P. (1994). A functional analysis of resistance during parent training therapy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 1, 53–70.Google Scholar
- Prado, G., Pantin, H., Schwartz, S. J., Lupei, N. S., & Szapocznik, J. (2006). Predictors of engagement and retention into a parent-centered, ecodevelopmental HIV preventive intervention for Hispanic adolescents and their families. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 31, 874–890.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Redmond, C., Spoth, R. L., Shin, C., Schainker, L. M., Greenberg, M. T., & Feinberg, M. (2009). Long-term protective factor outcome of evidence-based interventions implemented by community teams through a community-university partnership. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 30, 513–530.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Robbins, M. S., Liddle, H. A., Turner, C. W., Dakof, G. A., Alexander, J. F., & Kogan, S. M. (2006). Adolescent and parent therapeutic alliances as predictors of dropout in multidimensional family therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 108–116.Google Scholar
- Schoenfelder, E. N., Sandler, I. N., Millsap, R. E., Wolchik, S. A., Berkel, C., & Ayers, T. S. (2013). Caregiver responsiveness to the Family Bereavement Program: What predicts responsiveness? What does responsiveness predict? Prevention Science, 14, 545–556.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Spoth R., Rohrbach L., Greenberg M., Leaf P., Brown C.H., Fagan, A., & the Society for Prevention Research Type 2 Translational Task Force Members. (2013). Addressing core challenges for the next generation of type 2 translation research and systems: The translation science to population impact (TSci Impact) framework. Prevention Science 14, 319–351.Google Scholar
- Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Mason, W. A., Schainker, L., & Borduin, L. (2015). Research on the Strengthening Families Program for Parents and Youth 10-14: Long-term effects, mechanisms, translation to public health, PROSPER partnership scale up. In L. M. Scheier (Ed.), Handbook of Drug prevention: Research, intervention strategies, and practice (pp. 267–292). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar