A parenting intervention for childhood behavioral problems: A randomized controlled trial in disadvantaged community-based settings.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A community-based randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted in urban areas characterized by high levels of disadvantage to test the effectiveness of the Incredible Years BASIC parent training program (IYBP) for children with behavioral problems. Potential moderators of intervention effects on child behavioral outcomes were also explored. METHOD: Families were included if the child (aged 32-88 months) scored above a clinical cutoff on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI). Participants (n = 149) were randomly allocated on a 2:1 ratio to an intervention group (n = 103) or a waiting-list control group (n = 46). Child behavior, parenting skills, and parent well-being were assessed at baseline and 6 months later using parent-report and independent observations. An intention-to-treat analysis of covariance was used to examine postintervention differences between groups. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in child disordered behavior favored the intervention group on the ECBI Intensity (effect size = 0.7, p < .001) and Problem subscales (effect size = 0.75, p < .001). Intervention effects on child hyperactive-inattentive behaviors and social competence, as well as parent competencies and well-being, were also found. Moderator analyses showed that the effects of the IYBP intervention on the primary child outcomes were not moderated by child or family demographic characteristics or risk factors. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the IYBP in alleviating problem behavior among children and in improving well-being among families living in disadvantaged areas. The findings also highlight the importance of parental intervention in early childhood for parents and children most in need of support.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".