87 Suitability of the I-InTERACT-North Parenting Program for families with autistic children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: I-InTERACT-North is a stepped-care telepsychological parenting intervention designed to promote positive parenting skills and improve child behaviour. Initially developed for children with traumatic brain injury, our pilot study has shown efficacy in increasing positive parenting skills and reducing problem behaviours for children with early brain injury (e.g., stroke, encephalopathy). Recently, the program has expanded to include children with neurodevelopmental disorders, including Autism Spectrum Disorder. Although positive parenting programs (e.g., Parent-Child Interaction Therapy) can be effective for autistic children, it is unknown whether the goals most important to these families can be addressed with IInTERACT-North program. An examination of suitability and preliminary efficacy was conducted. Participants and Methods: Parent participants of autistic children between 3 and 9 years (n= 20) were recruited from the neonatal, neurology, psychiatry, or cardiology clinics at The Hospital for Sick Children and the Province of Ontario Neurodevelopmental Disorders (POND) Network. Top problems, as reported by parents at baseline, were analyzed qualitatively through a cross-case analysis procedure in order to identify common themes and facilitate generalizations surrounding concerning behaviours. Parent-reported intensity of their children’s top problem behaviours on a scale from 1 (“not a problem”) to 8 (“huge problem”) were quantified. To explore preliminary program efficacy, t-tests were used to compare pre- and post-intervention problems and intensity on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) (n=16). Results: A total of 56 top problem data units were examined, with convergent thematic coding on 53 of 56 (94.6% inter-coder reliability). Four prevalent, high-agreement themes were retained: emotion dysregulation (19; 33.9%), non-compliance (12; 21.4%), sibling conflict (7; 12.5%), and inattention and hyperactivity (7; 12.5%). Average problem intensity for these themes ranged from 5.85 to 6.53 (where 8 is greatest impairment) with emotion dysregulation having the highest intensity (6.53) compared to the others. Scores on the ECBI were lower post-intervention (Intensity scale: M= 59.06, SD= 8.1; Problem scale: M= 60.69, SD= 11.5) compared to pre-intervention (Intensity scale: M= 61.19, SD= 10.4; Problem scale: M= 64.31, SD= 11.7), but small sample size precluded detecting statistical significance (p’s = .16 and .07, respectively). Conclusions: Thematic analysis of top problems identified by parents of autistic children suggested that concerns were transdiagnostic in nature, and represent common treatment targets of the I-InTERACTNorth program. Though challenging behaviours related to restricted interests or repetitive behaviours may exist in our sample, parental behavioural goals appeared to align with the types of concerns traditionally raised by participants of the program, supporting a transdiagnostic approach. Preliminary data point to positive treatment outcomes in these families.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".