Effects of Parent Training Programmes on Parents’ Sense of Competence in a General Population Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This longitudinal case-controlled study examined the effects of universal parent-focused interventions on parents’ perceived competence in terms of parental efficacy and satisfaction.METHOD: The study sample consisted of parents from northern Sweden in the general population who participated in parent training programmes from 2010 to 2013, and a matched-comparison group. All parents had children aged 0–17. Sense of competence was measured by the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale at pre- and post-intervention and six months after the intervention.RESULTS: The intervention group showed a statistically significant improvement in parental competence compared to the comparison group over time. The intervention itself had a significant effect on parental satisfaction, but the efficacy effect was not sustained when taking into account potential confounders.CONCLUSIONS: Earlier studies indicate that parent training programmes enhance perceived parental competence amongst referred parents. The present study shows that parent training programmes applied in the general population may also enhance perceived parental satisfaction, suggesting that parent training programmes can be an important preventive strategy to enhance parental feelings of satisfaction in the wider population. The results suggest that parents who participate in parent training programmes might have a need to increase parental competence, based on lower scores than the comparison group, both before and after the intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".