The Community Parent Education Program (COPE): Treatment Effects in a Clinical and a Community-based Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study is the first European evaluation of the Canadian parent training programme called Community Parent Education Program (COPE). In addition, it is the first to examine the effects of the COPE programme in different types of clinical and nonclinical samples. The main findings were that COPE was found to be effective in reducing conduct problems, hyperactivity/impulsivity, daily problem behaviours, parental stress, and lack of perceived parental control. However, the programme was not effective in reducing inattention, social competence deficits, or peer problems. Interestingly, the significant group effects were a result of significant differences between the two nonclinical intervention groups and the waiting-list control group, whereas the clinical intervention group did not differ significantly from the control group with regard to either child or parental variables. This points to the importance of evaluating parent training programmes in groups with different levels of severity so that parents are offered the type of training programme most suitable for their child's needs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".