Examining Parents’ Preferences for Group and Individual Parent Training for Children with ADHD Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parent training (PT) programs have been found to reduce some behavioral impairment associated with children's attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as well as improve parenting competence, but poor uptake and participation by parents are formidable barriers that affect service effectiveness. We used a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to examine how parent preferences for treatment format (i.e., group vs. individual) might influence their participation in PT. Participants were 445 parents seeking mental health services for children with elevated symptoms of ADHD in Ontario, Canada. Parents completed a DCE composed of 30 choice tasks used to gauge PT format preference. Results showed that 58.7% of parents preferred individual PT; these parents were most interested in interventions that would make them feel more informed about their child's problems and in understanding-as opposed to solving-their child's problems. A minority of parents (19.4%) preferred group PT; these parents were most interested in active, skill-building services that would help them solve their child's problems. About one fifth of parents (21.9%) preferred the Minimal Information alternative (i.e., receiving neither individual or group PT); these parents reported the highest levels of depression and the most severe mental health problems in their child. Results highlight the importance of considering parent preferences for format and suggest that alternative formats to standard PT should be considered for multiply stressed families.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".