The Effect of Cognitive-Behavioral Parenting Skills Training (CBPST) on the Behavioral Problems of Preschool Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effectiveness of parental skills training using a cognitive-behavioral method in order to reduce the behavioral problems of the preschool children. This was a quasi-experimental study with a pretest-posttest design. The statistical population of the study consisted of all parents of the preschool children in Isfahan in educational year of 2014-2015. To this end, 32 parents (64 persons) who obtained 1.5 SD higher than the reported mean in response to the behavioral problems of their children, were randomly selected and divided into two groups of 16 parents (32 persons) as the treatment and control groups based on the random distribution. After conducting the pre-test for both groups, the treatment group received parental skills training using a cognitive behavioral method for six sessions during one month; however, the control group received no training. Then, for both groups, post-test was implemented and follow-up study was conducted. In order to assess the behavioral problems of the children, Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) was used. Finally, the data were analyzed using the analysis of covariance. The results showed that the mean of the treatment group was significantly reduced compared to that of the control group in terms of the behavioral problems, anxiety, depression, somatization, social problems, thought problems, attention problems, rule-breaking behaviors, aggressive behaviors, and other problems. It could be concluded that cognitive behavioral parenting skills training was an effective way to reduce the children’s behavioral problems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".