The Implementation of Triple P – Positive Parenting Program: An Examination of Key Variables and Program Adherence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adoption of evidence-based parenting programs by community agencies requires an understanding of the variables that affect their implementation. This study examined variables associated with the implementation of Triple P – Positive Parenting Program in Ontario. Surveys were completed on-line by 63 administrators, 54 supervisors, and 215 service providers from 69 different agencies. In a first article, I report on agencies’ pre-implementation openness, readiness, and resistance as well as on service providers’ self-reported use of and adherence to the program. Respondents from the vast majority of agencies reported openness to change prior to implementation but approximately half reported that they were not ready and experienced resistance. Although the majority of trained service providers used the program, a significant minority had not delivered it since training. The average adherence rate reported by service providers who used the program was 85.9%. In the second article, I report on the variables associated with implementation. The majority of respondents reported that they had adequate office resources to implement Triple P. Over half the managers (administrators and supervisors) and over two thirds of service providers reported that their agency had received adequate training. The most commonly identified barrier to implementation was agency characteristics which included organizational climate, service provider characteristics, and supervision. Adequate office resources and positive agency characteristics were associated with higher program usage by service providers. Service providers’ reports impacted their individual adherence rates whereas managers had broader perspectives of the quality of implementation in their organizations. Differences in reports between managers and service providers were not associated with usage or adherence.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".