Advertisement

Prevention Science

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 609–619 | Cite as

Predictors of Group Leaders’ Perceptions of Parents’ Initial and Dynamic Engagement in a Family Preventive Intervention

  • J. Douglas Coatsworth
  • Katharine T. Hemady
  • Melissa W. George
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Participant engagement Participation Parent training Prevention program Intervention impact 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. Baker, C. N., Arnold, D. H., & Meagher, S. (2011). Enrollment and attendance in a parent training prevention program for conduct problems. Prevention Science, 12, 126–138. doi: 10.1007/s11121-010-0187-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bamberger, K. T. (2016). The application of intensive longitudinal methods to investigate change: Stimulating the field of applied family research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 19, 21–38. doi: 10.1007/s10567-015-0194-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bamberger, K., Coatsworth, J. D., Fosco, G. M., & Ram, N. (2014). Change in participant engagement during a family-based preventive intervention: Ups and downs with time and tension. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 811–820.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Baydar, N., Reid, M. J., & Webster-Stratton, C. (2003). The role of mental health factors and program engagement in the effectiveness of a preventive parenting program for head start mothers. Child Development, 74, 1433–1453.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Berkel, C., Mauricio, A. M., Schoenfelder, E., & Sandler, I. N. (2011). Putting the pieces together: An integrated model of program implementation. Prevention Science, 12, 23–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Brody, G. H., Murry, V. M., Chen, Y.-F., Kogan, S. M., & Brown, A. C. (2006). Effects of family risk factors on dosage and efficacy of a family-centered preventive intervention for rural African Americans. Prevention Science, 7, 281–291.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage focus editions, 154, 136–136.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Coatsworth, J. D., Duncan, L., Pantin, H., & Szapocznik, J. (2006). Patterns of retention in a preventive intervention with ethnic minority families. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 27, 171–193.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Coatsworth, J. D., Duncan, L. G., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Gayles, J. G., Bamberger, K. T., et al. (2015). Integrating mindfulness with parent training: Effects of the mindfulness-enhanced strengthening families program. Developmental Psychology, 51, 26–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dishion, T. J., & Kavanagh, K. (2003). Intervening in adolescent problem behavior: A family-centered approach (p. 2003). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  15. Dishion T. J., & Snyder, J. J. (2015). The Oxford handbook of coercive relationship dynamics. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duncan, L. G., Coatsworth, J. D., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). A model of mindful parenting: Implications for parent-child relationships and prevention research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 12, 255–270. doi: 10.1007/s10567-009-0046-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Durlak, J., & DuPre, E. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., Henry, D. B., & Leventhal. (2002). Predictors of participation in a family-focused preventive intervention for substance use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gross, D., Julion, W., & Fogg, L. (2001). What motivates participation and dropout among low-income urban families of color in a prevention intervention? Family Relations, 50, 246–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haggerty, K. P., MacKenzie, E. P., Skinner, M. L., Harachi, T. W., & Catalano, R. F. (2006). Participation in “Parents Who Care”: Predicting program initiation and exposure in two different program formats. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 27(1), 47–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Haine-Schlagel, R., & Walsh, N. E. (2015). A review of parent participation in engagement in child and family mental health treatment. Clinical Child and Family Psychological Review, 18, 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kazdin, A. E., Mazurick, J. L., & Bass, D. (1993). Risk for attrition in treatment of antisocial children and families. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22, 2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (1991). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change addictive behavior. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Patterson, G., & Chamberlain, P. (1994). A functional analysis of resistance during parent training therapy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 1, 53–70.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population? Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Spoth, R. (2008). Translating family-focused prevention science into effective practice: Toward a translational impact paradigm. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 415–421.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (2000). Research on family engagement in preventive interventions: Toward improved use of scientific findings in primary prevention practice. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 21, 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Winslow, E., Bonds, D., Wolchik, S., Sandler, I., & Braver, S. (2009). Predictors of enrollment and retention in a preventive parenting intervention for divorced families. The Journal of Primary Prevention., 30, 151–172.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Prevention Research 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Douglas Coatsworth
    • 1
  • Katharine T. Hemady
    • 2
  • Melissa W. George
    • 1
  1. 1.Colorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Public Health Management OrganizationPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations