Evaluation of a Trauma-Informed Parenting Program for Resource Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child maltreatment impacts many young people involved in the child welfare system, and it is important that the resource parents supporting these youth have knowledge and skills in trauma-informed care. The current study is a preliminary evaluation of the Resource Parent Curriculum (RPC), an in-service, 8-module, group-based parenting program developed by the National Child Traumatic Stress Network. Youth and caregiver outcomes were examined by way of a quasi-experimental design that included 22 resource parents in the experimental group and 21 in the waitlist control group and involved baseline, post-program, and 2-month follow-up assessments. For learning outcomes, RPC resulted in improvements in resource parents' knowledge and beliefs about trauma-informed parenting. While not statistically significant, potential effects included improvements in resource parents' tolerance of challenging youth behaviors and parenting self-efficacy. For behavioral outcomes, several non-significant potential effects were noted, including improvements in resource parents' attachment relationships with their youth and increased social supports. This study was the first to evaluate RPC using a quasi-experimental design within a Canadian context and through a virtual delivery. Findings highlighted several benefits of the program and resource parents' ongoing training needs.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".