Rural children referred for conduct problems: evaluation of a collaborative program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rural families can find it difficult to access mental health treatment for children’s conduct problems. The current program was designed to provide immediate assistance to families who faced extended waiting times in the south-eastern region of South Australia. In this collaborative project, a primary care professional delivered a telephone-guided version of a clinically based parent training program (Barkley’s Defiant Children) with program support from mental health services. The 12-week trial included 29 children aged 2–12 years who were referred for disruptive behaviour, attention-deficit hyperactivity and learning difficulties. Children were randomised to either a parent training group or a waiting list control group. Parents in the training program were generally satisfied (Therapy Attitude Inventory overall rating = 4.3 measured on a 5-point Likert scale). The main behavioural measure showed significantly better outcomes for the training program (Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory (ECBI): Intensity scale (F1,27 = 11.39, P < 0.01) and Problem scale (F1,27 = 11.64, P < 0.01). For the parent training group, the mean score for the ECBI Intensity scale was reduced from above the clinical cut-off before treatment to below the cut-off after treatment. The effect sizes were 0.45 for the ECBI Intensity scale and 0.31 for the ECBI Problem scale. This suggests that the Defiant Children parent training can be adapted successfully for use by primary care professionals.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".