Engagement and effectiveness of parent management training for solo high risk mothers : a multiple baseline evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessed the effectiveness of The Incredible Years parent training program with a small sample of four high risk solo mothers in a public clinic setting. All families had a number of risk factors for early drop-out and poor outcomes. Mindful of resource limitations in the public setting, economical strategies were used to enhance attendance rates and engagement. For the outcome evaluation, a multiple baseline across participants design was used. Participants attended a 2-hour group treatment session weekly for twenty weeks, with booster sessions at 2 and 4 months following treatment. Participants had sons aged between 6 and 9 years diagnosed with ADHD. Family functioning was assessed from a pre-treatment interview schedule, measures of child behaviour and parent and family functioning. Participants also completed program satisfaction and program evaluation measures. Results showed (a) all mothers engaged with and finished the program, (b) improvement in family functioning, (c) improvements in some teacher and parent reports of child behaviour, (d) increased parenting confidence, (e) reduced stress and depression levels for most parent participants, and (f) reports of better parent-child relationships. Additionally, participants all reported being highly satisfied with the program. Findings overall support the use of easy to do engagement strategies and the use of the Incredible Years parent training program as an effective, low cost and early step intervention for families at higher risk in a day-to-day practice setting.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".