Effectiveness of the Triple P Program on Parental Stress and Self-efficacy in the Context of a Community Roll-out
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study evaluated the effectiveness of the Triple P (Primary Care and/or Group) parenting support program on various aspects of the parenting experience through a quasi-experimental pretest – post-test protocol with an active comparison group (Care as usual). A sample of 384 parents assigned to two groups (n Triple P = 291; n Care as usual = 93) completed three subscales of the Parenting Stress Index – 4 – Short Form (Parental Distress, Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction, and Difficult Child) and the Parental Self-Agency Measure. The amount of intervention received by each parent was considered in the analyses. Path analysis showed that the type (Triple P vs Care as usual) and the amount of intervention (number of sessions attended) contributed independently to predicting changes in parenting experience between pretest and post-test. Receiving Triple P was systematically associated with more positive outcomes than receiving care as usual, whereas more intervention was positively associated with improved self-efficacy and parent-child relationship quality. Overall, the model explained between 4.0% and 12.6% of the variance in individual change, depending on the outcome, suggesting that unmeasured drivers of change came into play. A follow-up of parents in the Triple P group two to four years after the end of the program (n follow-up = 164) showed that the observed changes were maintained over time, with moderate to large effect sizes. These results help to broaden the evidence base on the effectiveness of this program in a sociocultural and linguistic context different from that in which it was developed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".