Comparative efficacy of the Triple P program on parenting practices and family violence against children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Triple P - Positive Parenting Program was rolled-out in two communities in Quebec, Canada, in order to prevent child maltreatment. OBJECTIVES: (1) Evaluate the effects of Triple P versus care as usual on positive parenting practices, dysfunctional disciplinary practices, and family violence towards the child; (2) verify whether the observed changes persisted over time. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: A quasi-experimental protocol with an active comparison group was used. Participants were 384 parents or parental figures of at least one 0-12-year-old child, assigned to one of two groups: Triple P (n = 291) and Care as usual (n = 93). We conducted a follow-up study with 164 parents from the Triple P group. METHODS: We administered questionnaires at pretest, post-test, and follow-up. Standardized instruments measured positive parenting practices, dysfunctional disciplinary practices (overreactivity, laxness, hostility), and family violence towards the child (repeated psychological aggression, minor physical violence). The intervention dose received by each parent was calculated from data provided by practitioners. RESULTS: = 0.271, overreactivity) effect sizes. Also, Triple P was more effective in reducing minor physical violence, this effect persisting over time (from 36 % to 21 %). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the sustainable efficacy of the Triple P parenting program, except for repeated psychological aggression towards children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".