Independent evaluation of the Triple P Positive Parenting Program in family support service settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The Triple P Positive Parenting Program is a multilevel system of behaviour‐based parenting training and support. The aim of this study was to determine whether implementation of levels 2 and 3 of the Triple P system, designed for primary care settings, enhances parent, child and family outcomes compared with services‐as‐usual in Alberta, Canada. The study employed a quasi‐experimental, single‐blind and post‐test‐only design. A survey incorporating outcome measures was administered to a sample of 1296 parent‐clients. A total of 923 parents responded, including 172 parents who had received a Triple P (level 2 and/or 3) intervention during the previous 12 weeks. A significant interaction was found between participation in a group‐based parent education programme and receipt of Triple P. Parents who participated in a group‐based parent education programme, and who received a Triple P intervention reported somewhat higher levels of need satisfaction than parents who participated in a group‐based parent education programme but who did not receive a Triple P intervention. No significant difference was found between Triple P and service‐as‐usual groups on any secondary outcome measures including parenting stress, positive interaction, family functioning and child problem behaviours.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".