Randomized Controlled Trial of the Arson Prevention Program for Children (TAPP-C)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the serious consequences that can derive from youth fire involvement, and the extensive use of fire intervention programs, efficacy data for existing treatments is limited and includes only one randomized controlled trial (RCT). The current RCT examined the relative benefits of a multimodal, collaborative firesetting intervention by comparing a modified protocol of The Arson Prevention Program for Children (TAPP-C), which included fire service and mental health components, to the standard treatment, which is fire safety education only (FSE). The study examined change in fire-specific safety knowledge, attitudes and behaviors, and is the first to examine change across broader indices of behavioural and emotional well-being, and parenting constructs. The study sample comprised 27 fire-involved youth, aged 6-16, referred to the TAPP-C program at a large teaching hospital, and their caregiver. Caregiver-youth dyads were randomly assigned to a modified TAPP-C or FSE intervention with data collected at pre- and post-intervention, and 3-month follow-up. Results showed both interventions were effective in reducing firesetting, fire interest, and behavioural and emotional difficulties. No recidivism was reported for either group post-intervention or at 3-month follow up. Results for the parenting constructs revealed negative perceptions of the caregiver-child relationship. Preliminary results suggest fire-involvement may be associated with externalized parental locus of control (PLOC) orientation, and significant relationships were found among parental cognitions, PLOC, and perceived parental competence. Novel findings showed youth deficit in executive function (EF), and that greater EF deficit was significantly related to greater youth-reported fire-interest and behavioural difficulties. Youth participants performed poorly on an impulsivity task, suggesting great impairment in this area. Only youth who received the modified TAPP-C intervention showed significant improvement on the impulsivity task, highlighting a unique benefit for interventions including a mental health component. Finally, results showed readiness to change significantly improved post-treatment for caregivers and youth in both groups. As only the second RCT of a firesetting intervention, the results represent a significant contribution to the existing literature and establishment of best practice intervention by providing preliminary data on the relative efficacy of FSE and combined, collaborative approaches.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".