The Experiences of Parents and Facilitators in a Positive Parenting Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The researchers examined facilitators’ and parents’ experiences with the Positive Discipline in Everyday Parenting (PDEP) program through qualitative methodology. PDEP is a primary prevention program that teaches parents to move away from physical punishment and toward conflict resolution and positive parenting that focuses on stages of child development. Using a phenomenological approach, we conducted focus groups using semi-structured interviews with four PDEP facilitators and seven parents who completed the program. Parents and facilitators indicated that PDEP helped them learn new ways of thinking about parenting and contributed to overall changes in their parenting approach, including finding a balance of structured and sensitive parenting practices. Factors that contributed to positive experiences included the coherence and continuity among program modules, use of concrete examples to demonstrate concepts, supportive facilitators and fellow group members, and the provision of childcare. Suggestions for program improvement included the use of even more concrete examples to demonstrate parenting concepts, longer program duration, and greater flexibility in program delivery. These findings are important for further adaptations to the PDEP program. These findings may also be generalized to parenting programs that share similar core principles.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".