EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GROUP TRIPLE P (POSITIVE PARENTING PROGRAM) IN AN ORPHANAGE CONTEXT IN LAHORE, PAKISTAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An inadequate caregiving environment in an orphanage can negatively impact children’s well-being, while a lack of specialized training can induce work-related stress and lower self-efficacy among caregivers. This study examined the effectiveness of the Group Triple P (positive parenting program) with caregivers of children in Pakistani orphanages. Fourteen caregivers across three orphanages completed self-report questionnaires and took part in Group Triple P. A repeated measures ANOVA indicated that the personal well-being of the caregivers improved following intervention. There was also a significant increase in caregivers’ parenting efficacy and a decrease in the use of dysfunctional parenting practices. The frequency and number of children’s challenging behaviors was reported to decrease significantly, along with a significant increase in warmth and reduction in negativity in caregiver–child relationships. This study was the first to implement Group Triple P in an orphanage context. The outcomes support the use of an evidence-based parenting intervention with orphanage caregivers who are in a proxy parenting role.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".