MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083601786 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00839

Study Protocol: The Coaching Alternative Parenting Strategies (CAPS) Study of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy in Child Welfare Families

2020· article· en· W3083601786 on OpenAlexaff
Akhila Nekkanti, Rose Jeffries, Carolyn M. Scholtes, Lisa Shimomaeda, Kathleen A. J. DeBow, Jessica Wells, Emma R. Lyons, Ryan J. Giuliano, Felicia J. Gutierrez, Kyndl Woodlee, Beverly W. Funderburk, Elizabeth A. Skowron

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute on Drug AbuseUniversity of Oklahoma
KeywordsCoachingPsychologyCognitionNeglectClinical psychologyChild abuseIntervention (counseling)Developmental psychologyObservational studyRandomized controlled trialPsychiatryMedicinePoison controlSuicide preventionPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Child maltreatment (CM) constitutes a serious public health problem in the United States with parents implicated in a majority of physical abuse and neglect cases. Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) is an intensive intervention for CM families that uses innovative "bug-in-ear" coaching to improve parenting and child outcomes, and reduce CM recidivism; however, the mechanisms underlying its effects are little understood. The Coaching Alternative Parenting Strategies (CAPS) study aims to clarify the behavioral, neural, and physiological mechanisms of action in PCIT that support positive changes in parenting, improve parent and child self-regulation and social perceptions, and reduce CM in child welfare-involved families. METHODS: The CAPS study includes 204 child welfare-involved parent-child dyads recruited from Oregon Department of Human Services to participate in a randomized controlled trial of PCIT versus a services-as-usual control condition (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02684903). Children ages 3-8 years at study entry and their parents complete a pre-treatment assessment prior to randomization and a post-treatment assessment 9-12 months post study entry. Dyads randomized to PCIT complete an additional, abbreviated assessment at mid-treatment. Each assessment includes individual and joint measures of parents' and children's cardiac physiology at rest, during experimental tasks, and in recovery; observational coding of parent-child interactions; and individual electroencephalogram (EEG) sessions including attentional and cognitive control tasks. In addition, parents and children complete an emotion regulation task and parents report on their own and their child's adverse childhood experiences and socio-cognitive processes, while children complete a cognitive screen and a behavioral measure of inhibitory control. Parents and children also provide anthropometric measures of allostatic load and 4-5 whole blood spots to assess inflammation and immune markers. CM recidivism is assessed for all study families at 6-month follow-up. Post-treatment and follow-up assessments are currently underway. DISCUSSION: Knowledge gained from this study will clarify PCIT effects on neurobehavioral target mechanisms of change in predicting CM risk reduction, positive, responsive parenting, and children's outcomes. This knowledge can help to guide efforts to tailor and adapt PCIT to vary in dosage and cost on the basis of individual differences in CM-risk factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0890.014

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207