ars.els-cdn.com · web viewindividual sessions with parents ranging from 5-8 one hour sessions...

Appendix A

The Triple P model of graded reach and intensity of parenting and family support services

Appendix BThe Triple P System of Parenting and Family Support1 (Taken from Sanders, 2012)

Level of Intervention

Intensity Program Variant Target Population Modes of Delivery Intervention Methods Used

Level 1Media and communication strategy on positive parenting

Very low intensity

Stay Positive All parents and members of the community interested in information about parenting to promote children’s development and prevent or manage common social, behavioral, and emotional problems.

Website to promote engagement. May also include television programming, public advertising, radio spots, newspaper and magazine editorials.

Coordinated media and promotional campaign to raise awareness of parent issues, destigmatize and encourage participation in parenting programs. Involves electronic and print media.

Level 2Brief parenting interventions

Lowintensity

Selected Triple PSelected Teen Triple PSelected Stepping Stones Triple P

Parents interested in general parenting information and advice or with specific concerns about their child’s development or behavior.

Series of 90-minute stand alone large group parenting seminars; or one or two brief individual face-to-face or telephone consultations (up to 20 minutes).

Parenting information promoting healthy development or advice for a specific developmental issue or minor behavior problem (e.g.,bedtime difficulty).

Level 3Narrow focus parenting programs

Low–moderate intensity

Primary Care Triple PPrimary Care Teen Triple PPrimary Care Stepping Stones Triple P

Parents with specific concerns as above who require brief consultations and active skills training.

Brief program (about 80 minutes) over three to four individual face-to-face or telephone sessions);

Combination of advice, rehearsal, and self-evaluation to teach parents to manage discrete child problems.

Triple P Discussion or series of 2-hour stand Brief topic-specific parent

Groups alone group sessions dealing with common topics (e.g.,disobedience, hassle-free shopping).

discussion groups.

Level 4Broad focus parenting programs

Moderate–high

intensity

Standard Triple PGroup Triple PSelf-Directed Triple PStandard Teen Triple PGroup Teen Triple PSelf-Directed Teen Triple POnline Triple P

Parents wanting intensive training in positive parenting skills.

Intensive program (about 10 hours) with delivery options including ten 60-minute individual sessions; or five 2-hour group sessions with three brief telephone or home visit sessions; or ten self-directed workbook modules (with or without telephone sessions); or eight interactive online modules.

Broad focus sessions on improving parent-child interaction and the application of parenting skills to a broad range of target behaviors. Includes generalization enhancement strategies.

Standard Stepping Stones Triple PGroup Stepping Stones Triple PSelf-Directed Stepping Stones Triple P

Parents of children with disabilities who have, or who are at risk of developing, behavioral or emotional problems.

Targeted program involving ten 60–90 minute individual sessions or 2-hour group sessions.

Parallel program with a focus on parenting children with disabilities.

Level 5Intensive family interventions

Highintensity

Enhanced Triple P Parents of children with behavior problems and concurrent family dysfunction such as parental depression or stress, or conflict between partners.

Adjunct individually-tailored program with up to eight individual 60-minute sessions (may include home visits).

Modules include practice sessions to enhance parenting; mood management and stress coping skills; and partner support skills.

Pathways Triple P Parents at risk of maltreating their children. Targets anger management problems and other factors associated with abuse.

Adjunct program with three 60-minute individual sessions or 2-hour group sessions.

Modules include attribution retraining and anger management.

Lifestyle Triple P Parents of overweight or obese children. Targets healthy eating and increasing activity levels as well as general child behavior.

Intensive 14-session group program (including telephone consultations).

Program focuses on nutrition, healthy lifestyle and general parenting strategies.

Family Transitions Triple P

Parents going through separation or divorce.

Intensive 12-session group program (including telephone consultations).

Program focuses on coping skills, conflict management, general parenting strategies and developing a healthy co-parenting relationship.

1Only program variants that have been trialed and are available for dissemination are included.

Appendix C

Measures included in each outcome category

Outcome Variable Measure

Child social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes (child SEB outcomes)

Child Attention Problems rating scale (CAP), Child Adjustment and Parent Efficacy Scale (CAPES), Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL), Care-giving Problem Checklist (CPC), Developmental Behaviour Checklist (DBC), Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory (ECBI), Fremdbeurteilungsbogen (FBB), Home and Community Problem Checklist (HCPC), KINDL Questionnaire for Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Children, Lifestyle Behaviour Checklist (LBC), Parent and Toddler Feeding Assessment (PATFA), Parent Daily Report (PDR), Parent Daily Report Checklist (PDRC), Parenting Experience Survey (PES), Revised Behaviour Problem Checklist (RBPC), Social Behaviour Questionnaire (SBQ), Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale (SCAS), and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

Parenting practices The Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ), Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAPI), Egna Minnen Betraffende Uppfostran (My Memories of Upbringing; EMBU-P), PATFA, Parenting Scale (PS), Parenting Scale-Adolescent version (PS-A), and Positive Parenting Questionnaire (PPQ).

Parenting satisfaction and efficacy

The Brief Parenting Beliefs Scale-baby version (BPBS-b), Being a Parent Scale (BPS), CAPES, Fragebogen zur Selbstwirksamkeit (FSW), LBC, PATFA, Parenting Belief Scale (PBS), PES, Problem Setting and Behaviour Checklist (PSBC), Parental Self Efficacy scale (PSE), Parenting Sense of Competence (PSOC), Parenting Tasks Checklist (PTC), Toddler Care Questionnaire (TCQ), and What Being the Parent of a New Baby is Like (WPL).

Parental adjustment The Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire (ATQ), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D), Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS), Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), General Life Satisfaction questionnaire (GLS), Life Satisfaction scale (LS), Oxford Happiness Inventory (OHI), Parental Anger Inventory (PAI), PES, Parenting Stress Index (PSI), Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF), Parental Stress Scale (PSS), Resilience Scale (RS), State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI), Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), and Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS).

Parental relationship The Abbreviated Dyadic Adjustment Scale (ADAS), Acrimony Scale (AS), Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale (EMS), Frequency and Acceptability of Partner Behaviour Inventory (FAPBI), Marital Communication Inventory (MCI), PES, Parent Problem Checklist (PPC), Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS), and Relationship Quality Inventory (RQI).

Child observations The Family Observation Schedule (FOS), Mealtime Observation Schedule (MOS), and Shopping Observation Checklist (SOC). These observation schedules employ interval coding to record the occurrence or non-occurrence of discrete positive (e.g., engaged in appropriate play) and negative child behaviors (e.g., non-compliance, complaints, aversive physical contact).

Parent observations The FOS and MOS. These observation schedules employ interval coding to record the occurrence or non-occurrence of discrete positive (e.g., praise, aversive physical contact, instructions) and negative parent behaviors (e.g., negative instructions, negative physical contact).

Appendix D

Formulae for calculating d for controlled and uncontrolled trials

Formulae for calculating d for controlled trials:

d = c[(MTpost – MTpre) – (MCpost – MCpre)]/SDpooled

SDpooled = √[(nT – 1)SDTpre2 + (nC – 1)SDCpre

2]/(nT + nC – 2)

c = 1 – 3/(4(nT + nC – 2) – 1)

where MTpre, MTpost = mean of treatment group at preintervention and postintervention, respectively; MCpre, MCpost = mean of control group at

preintervention and postintervention, respectively; SDpooled = pooled standard deviation at preintervention; SDTpre, SDCpre = standard deviation at

preintervention of treatment and control group, respectively; nT, nC = sample size of treatment and control group, respectively; c = bias correction

factor

Formulae for calculating d for uncontrolled trials:

d = c (Mpost – Mpre)/SDpre

c = 1 – 3/(4(n – 1) – 1)

where Mpre, Mpost = mean at preintervention and postintervention, respectively; SDpre = standard deviation at preintervention; c = bias correction

factor; n = sample size

Appendix E

Description and coding of moderator variables

Moderator

variable

Description of variable Categories Interpretation of regression coefficients

Components of intervention variables

Triple P level Categorical variable. Level of Triple P intervention used. For

the few studies evaluating a precursor format of Triple P, the

level was determined by matching the number and length of

sessions in the intervention with the Triple P levels.

Four dummy

variables:

0 0 0 0 Level 1

1 0 0 0 Level 2

0 1 0 0 Level 3

0 0 1 0 Level 4

0 0 0 1 Level 5

DV1: Positive value indicates higher effect sizes for

Level 2 relative to Level 1.







Program variant Categorical variable. Triple P program variant used including

0-12 years programs, Teen programs, Stepping Stones

programs, and Workplace programs. Although other program

variants exist, such as Baby Triple P, Grandparent Triple P,

and Fuss-Free Feeding Triple P, only a very small number of

studies have evaluated these variants so these studies were

excluded from this moderator analysis. Only analyzed in Level

4 data.

Three dummy

variables:

0 0 0 0-12 years

1 0 0 Teen

0 1 0 Stepping

Stones

0 0 1 Workplace


Teen relative to 0-12 years.


Stepping Stones relative to 0-12 years.


Workplace relative to 0-12 years.

Delivery format Categorical variable. Delivery format used in intervention

including standard (individual sessions with a practitioner),

group, self-directed, self-directed plus telephone, and online.

Only analyzed in Level 4 data.

Four dummy

variables:

0 0 0 0 Standard

1 0 0 0 Group

0 1 0 0 Self-

directed

0 0 1 0 Self-

directed plus

telephone

0 0 0 1 Online


Group relative to Standard.


Self-directed relative to Standard.


Self-directed plus telephone relative to Standard.


Online relative to Standard.

Sample characteristics variables

Country Categorical variable. Whether the study was implemented in

Australia, or implemented in another country

Australia = 1

Other countries = 0

Positive value indicates higher effect sizes for

Australia compared to other countries.

Developmental

disability

Categorical variable. Whether the target children had a

developmental disability or not

Developmental

disability = 1

No disability = 0


children with developmental disability compared to

without.

Child age Continuous variable. Mean age of the children in each sample Positive value indicates higher effect sizes for

higher mean child age.

Study approach Categorical variable. There were three levels of study

approach: (a) universal - addresses the entire population of

parents, not identified on the basis of risk and designed to meet

Two dummy

variables:


Targeted approach relative to Universal.


the needs that all parents might have; (b) targeted – aimed at

parents or parents of children with identified needs considered

at higher risk for future problems; or (c) treatment – designed

to alter the course of an existing or diagnosed problem as

specified by a clinical cut-off or diagnosis.

0 0 Universal

1 0 Targeted

0 1 Treatment

Treatment approach relative to Universal.

Severity of

initial child

problems

Continuous variable. Based on parent-report data, the severity

of initial child problems was determined for each study by

calculating a T-score (standard score based on a normal

distribution with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10)

for the mean of child problems for the treatment group. T-

scores were calculated for measures where community means

and standard deviations were available and Australian norms

were used where possible. When multiple measures of child

problems were used in a study, an average of the T-scores was

entered as the moderator.


higher severity of initial child problems.

Methodological variables

Design Categorical variable. Design was divided into trials which

utilized randomization procedures (i.e., randomized controlled

trials and cluster randomized trials), and non-randomized trials

(i.e., quasi-experimental studies and uncontrolled studies).

Randomized trials

= 0

Non-randomized

trials = 1

Positive value indicates higher effect sizes for non-

randomized trials.

Methodological

quality

Continuous variable. Methodological quality of each study was

determined using the Downs and Black (1998) measure for


methodological quality for both randomized and non-

randomized trials. Scores range from 1 to 26, with higher

scores indicating higher quality.

higher methodological quality.

Attrition Continuous variable. Percentage of attrition for the treatment

group from preintervention to postintervention was calculated.


higher rates of attrition.

Length of

follow-up

Continuous variable. Length of follow-up was defined in

months ranging from 2 to 36 months.

Only analyzed in follow-up data.


longer follow-up periods.

Risk of bias variables

Publication

status

Categorical variable. Publication status was determined as of

29 January 2013. Unpublished studies were found by

contacting researchers via email and asking for completed

studies that had for whatever reason not been published. This

included reports, unpublished Doctoral Dissertations,

unpublished Masters Theses, unpublished Honors Theses, and

manuscripts that were under review or in preparation.

Unpublished = 0

Published = 1


published papers compared to unpublished.

Developer

involvement

Categorical variable. The first and second authors of this paper

reviewed each study to determine level of developer

involvement. A study was classified as having any developer

involvement if the program developer was involved with study

conceptualization, design, methodology, analyses, write up, or

Any developer

involvement = 0

No developer

involvement = 1

Positive value indicates higher effect sizes for no

developer involvement compared to some

developer involvement.

if the program developer was consulted in aspects of study

design and implementation. If the program developer was

involved in none of these aforementioned steps, the study was

categorized as having no developer involvement. The

classification given to each study was then reviewed by the

third author of this paper.

Study power Categorical variable. Study power investigated whether

estimates of intervention effects are biased due to some studies

being underpowered. Studies were classified as having samples

greater than or equal to 35, or less than 35 participants in the

smallest group.

Studies with greater

than or equal to 35

participants in the

smallest group = 1

Studies with less

than 35 participants

in the smallest

group = 0


studies with greater or equal to 35 participants in

the smallest group compared to studies with less

than 35 participants in the smallest group.

Note. DV = dummy variable

Appendix F

Study characteristics of studies included in quantitative synthesis

Pape

r

Desig

n

Grou

ps

Vers

ion

of

Trip

le P

/ co

ntro

l tr

eatm

ent

Sam

ple

crite

ria

Mea

sure

Ti

mes

Sam

ple

size

Recr

uitm

ent

Dow

ns &

Bl

ack

scor

e

Child

mea

n ag

e (r

ange

)

% b

oys

Coun

try

Attriti

on ra

te

post

T1/

C or

T1

/T2/

C

Fath

er D

ata

Pare

nt

mea

sure

s

Child

m

easu

res

Adamson (2011) 4 RCT 1 T, 1 CFuss Free

Mealtimes Triple P (Group)

Parents seeking assistance for child's

eating and/or mealtime problems

Pre, Post, 6mo FU

96 2 213.14

(1.25-6)52.08 1 Australia

26.5%/12.77%

2/96PATFA, PS, PTC

ECBI, MOS, PATFA

Aurin (2012) 4 RCT 1 T, 1 CGroup Teen

Triple PParents of teens and

seeking supportPre, Post 82 2 20

13.5 (10-18)

51 2 Germany 2.4%/0% 41/121 PS, DASS CBCL

Bjornstad (2009) 4 RCT 1 T, 1 C SD only Triple PClinical range on

ECBIPre, Post, 6mo FU

28 3 22 3.64 (2-5) 78.57 1 UK 0%/15.38% NonePSOC, PS, DASS

ECBI, PDR, SDQ

Bodenmann, Cina, et al. (2008)

4 RCT 2 T, 1 C

Group Triple P; CCET (Couples

Coping Enhancement

Training)

UniversalPre, Post, 6mo FU, 12mo FU

150 1 20 6.6 (2-12) 54.7 1 Switzerland 4%/20% 150/300PS, PSOC, PPC, DASS

ECBI

Boyle et al (2010) 3 U 1 TPrimary Care

Triple PParents expressed

concern

Pre, Mid, Post, 4mo

FU10 2 19 4.15 (3-7) 40 1 USA NR NR FOS, PTC FOS, ECBI

Brown (2010) 4 RCT 1 T, 1 C Group Triple P Parents of multiplesPre, Post, 6mo FU

67 2 212.37 (1.5-

6)58.2 1 Australia

11.4%/3.1%

4/67PS, PSOC, DASS, RQI, PPC

ECBI

Cann, Rogers & Matthews (2003)a

4, 5

U 1 T Group Triple P (n=572),

Standard Triple P (n=16), Enhanced

Targeted areas likely to contain large

numbers of at risk families

Pre, Post 968 (589 analyzed)

2 15 4.5 (0-15) 61 2 Australia Preliminary data: 15.4% dropouts, 23.8% to

None ECBI

(n=44) (all pooled)

reply

Cann, Rogers & Worley (2003)a 4 U 1 T SD + Telephone

Targeted areas likely to contain large

numbers of at risk families

Pre, Post 73 2 15 5 (1-11) 60 2 Australia NR NRPS, PSOC, DASS, PPC, ADAS

Cassidy (2001) 2 RCT1 T, 1 C, 1 placebo

SD: reading Stepping Stones

booklet and tipsheets

Child with a developmental

disability and has specific behavioral

problem

Pre, Post 17 2 18 4.4 (2-7) 70.6 1 Australia

10.5% (total across

groups)

2/17PSOC, PS, DASS

DBC, PDRC

Chan, Leung, Sanders (2013)

4 RCT 2 T, 1 CGroup Triple P; non-directive

groupUniversal Pre, Post 89 1 19 4.27 (2-6) 58.4 1 Hong Kong

3.7%/0%/3.2%

14/88 PSS ECBI

Chand, Farruggia, et al. (in press)

2 U 1 TTeen Triple P

seminar seriesUniversal Pre, Post 32 1 15

13 (11-14)

36 1 New Zealand NR None PS-A, PPC

Child and Adolescent Community Health Service (2011)

2 U 1 T

Triple P Seminars

(attended 1-3 seminars)

UniversalPre, Post, 6mo FU

423 1 16 4.18 (2-8) 50.6 2 Australia 60.8% 5/166PS, PPC, PTC, RQI, DASS

SDQ

Chu (2013) 4 RCT 1 T, 1 CGroup Teen

Triple PUniversal

Pre, Post, 6mo FU

72 1 2012.9 (12-

15)59.4 1 New Zealand 8.6%/0% None PSE, PS-A SDQ

Cina et al (2011)b 4 CRT 1 T, 1 CSD + 10 weekly phone calls (20-

30 minutes)Universal

Pre, Post, 4mo FU

904 1 20 8.7 (NR) 53.6 2 Switzerland17.91%/

0.6%NR

PPQ, PS, PSBC, DASS

SDQ

Cina, Ledermann, et al. (2004)

1-4

QE 1 T, 1 CGroup for level

4Universal

Pre, Post, 6mo FU, 12mo FU

731 1 14 NR 57.3 2 Switzerland Field study 272/731 PS ECBI

Connell, Sanders & Markie-Dadds (1997)

4 RCT 1 T, 1 CSD and

telephoneClinical range on


(not

24 3 19 4.3 (2-6) 43.5 1 Australia 0%/8.3% 24/48PSOC, PS, DASS

ECBI, PDRC

sufficient data for

FU)

Crisante & Ng (2003)

4 U 1 T Group Triple P

Cantonese-speaking parents, priority

given to sole parents and those

with greater distress

Pre, Post 45 2 14 5.7 (3-10) 58 2

Australia (Cantonese as

mother tongue)

66.67% 1/39 SDQ

Crisante (2003) 3 U 1 TPrimary Care

Triple PUniversal Pre, Post 39 1 16

3 (preschoo

lers)61.5 2 Australia 25.6% NR PES PES

De Graaf, Haverman, et al. (2009)

4 U4

samples

Sample A, B: Standard or

Group Triple P; Sample C, D:

Group Triple P

Parents consider child's behavior as

severe and are insecure /

dissatisfied re parenting skills

Pre, Post, 3mo FU

(only FU for sample A)

166 2 19 NR (7-8) NR 2 NetherlandsOverall

9.6%NR

PS, BPS, DASS

SDQ

de Graaf, Onrust, et al.(2009)

3 QEf 2 T

Primary Care Triple P;

Regular Dutch parenting

consultation


129 1 16 6.2 (0-12) 65 2 Netherlands 13.8%/0% 7/129 PS, BPS SDQ

Dean (2003) 4 U 1 T Group Triple P UniversalPre, Post, 6mo FU, 12mo FU

508 1 13 NR (2-10) NR 2 Australia 35% 114/560PS, PPC, DASS

ECBI

Doherty (2012) 4 RCT 1 T, 1 CSD Teen Triple P + chronic illness

tipsheet

Teen with Type 1 diabetes

Pre, Post 79 2 22Median =

13 (11-17)

57 1 UK 48%/14% 1/79 PS, PSOC ECBI

Eichelberger, et al. (2010)

4 RCT 1 T, 1 C Group Triple P UniversalPre, Post, 6mo FU

93 1 18 4.2 (3-6) 57 2 Germany NR 79/169PS, PPQ, DASS, ADAS

CBCL, FBB

Eisner, et al. (2012)

4 CRT 1 T, 1 C Group Triple P UniversalPre, Post, 12mo FU, 24mo FU

1240 1 187.03

(year 1 students)

51.9 1 Switzerland5% (across

groups)None APQ SBQ

Fujiwara, Kato, & Sanders (2011)

4 QE 1 T, 1 C Group Triple PMothers reported

child behavior problems or found parenting difficult

Pre, Post 115 2 17 3.06 (2-8) 62.6 1 Japan NR NonePS, DASS, PES

SDQ

Glazemakers & Deboutte (2012)

4 U 1 TGroup Triple P

modified

Parents with Intellectual

Disability who are living in the community

Pre, Post 30 2 19

5.73 (age of

youngest child)

NR 1 Belgium 0% 15/30 PS, DASS SDQ

Glazemakers (2012)-Trial Ac

3, 4, 5

U 4 T

Primary Care Triple P; Group

Triple P; Standard Triple

P; Enhanced Triple P

Universal Pre, Post

PCTP:147, Group:813; Standard:

63; Enhanced:

31

1 18

Average age

range: 5.1-7.3

61.9 1 Belgium NR

PCTP: 38/147; Group:

195/813; Standard:

15/63; Enhanced:

9/31

PS, DASS SDQ

Glazemakers (2012)-Trial Bc 4 U 1 T Group Triple P

Parents with low income

Pre, Post 50 2 186.43 (<12)

58 1 Belgium NR 8/50 PS, DASS SDQ

Hahlweg, Heinrichs, et al. (2008)

4 RCT 1 T, 1 CSD and

telephoneUniversal

Pre, Post, 6mo FU

69 1 20 4.1 (3-6) 51 2 Germany 16%/19% 43/112PPQ, PS, GLS, CES-D, ADAS

CBCL, SDQ

Hampel, Schadt, et al. (2010)

4 U 1 TGroup Stepping

Stones

Child with disability or developmental

disorder and comorbid

behavioral problems

Pre, Post, 6mo FU,

12mo FU, 24mo FU

(not sufficient data for

FU)

118 2 13 NR (1-17) 71 2 Germany NR NRPS, DASS, PSOC, PPC

DBC, SDQ, KINDL

Harrison (2006) 4 RCT 1 T, 1 CGroup Stepping

StonesDevelopmental

disabilityPre, Post 28 2 18

3.5 (1.5-5)

57.1 2 Australia 7.7%/0% NRPS, PSOC, DASS, PPC

ECBI, DBC

Hartung & Hahlweg (2010)

4 RCT 1 T, 1 CWorkplace

Triple PEmployed parents

Pre, Post, 3mo FU, 6 mo FU (not sufficient data for

FU)

97 1 19 5.7 (2-10) NR 2 Germany27.59%/6.78%

23/97PS, DASS, PSOC

Haslam & Sanders (2012)


Triple P

Teachers seeking information about balancing work and

family

Pre, Post, 4mo FU


FU)

107 2 21 7.4 (2-12) 51.4 1 Australia21.8%/17.3%

25/107PS, PTC, PSOC, DASS

ECBI

Heinrichs & Kruger (2006)

4 U

4 conditions (group/ind

x paid/unpaid)

Group Triple P or Standard (pooled in analysis)

Socially disadvantaged neighborhood

Pre, Post 197 2 174.4 (2.6-

6.5)NR 2 Germany NR 33/197

PS, DASS, GLS, ADAS

CBCL, SDQ

Heinrichs (2006a) 4 CRT 1 T, 1 C Group Triple P UniversalPre, Post, 12mo FU

280 1 204.5 (2.6-

6)53.9 2 Germany NR 200/479 DASS, ADAS CBCL

Heinrichs et al (2009) e 4 CRT 1 T, 1 C

Group and telephone

Universal

Pre, Post, 12mo FU, 24mo FU, 36mo FU

280 1 204.5 (2.6-

6)53.9 2 Germany

5% over all the years

200/479 PS, PPQ CBCL

Hoath & Sanders (2002)

5 RCT 1 T, 1 C Group Triple P Diagnosis of ADHDPre, Post, 3mo FU

21 3 19 7.7 (5-9) 80 1 Australia 10%/0% NRPSBC, PS, PPC, RQI, DASS

ECBI, CAP

Hodges (2013) 4 CRT 1 T, 1 C connXionz (adapted

version of Teen Triple P for

Boarding school staff

Pre, Post 58 1 20 N/A N/A 1 Australia 13.3%/47.46%

None DASS

boarding school staff)

Ireland & Sanders (2003)

4, 5

RCTf 2 T

Group Triple P; Group Triple P + 2 group partner

support sessions

Parents in cohabitation and

marital conflict (PPC > 5) + report

concerns re child behavior

Pre, Post, 3mo FU

37 3 20 3.7 (2-5) 65 1 Australia 9.5%/21.7

%40/88

PS, PPC, DASS, ADAS, MCI, EMS

ECBI

Joachim, Sanders & Turner (2010)

2 RCT 1 T, 1 C

Hassle-free shopping discussion

group

Showing behavior problems during

shopping trips

Pre, Post, 6mo FU

46 2 20 3.26 (2-6) 54.3 1 Australia 15.4%/10% 2/46PS, PTC, PPC, DASS

ECBI, SOC

Kirby & Sanders (2013)

4 RCT 1 T, 1 CGrandparent

Triple P (Group)

Grandparents providing 12+ hours

care

Pre, Post, 6mo FU

54 2 21 4.42 (2-9) 62 1 Australia 7.14%/0% 3/54PS, PTC, DASS, PPC, RQI

ECBI

Lake (2010) 4 U 1 TGroup Stepping

Stones

Autism or Asperger's Syndrome

diagnosed in past 12 months

Pre, Post, 3mo FU


FU)

24 2 16 5.65 (2-8) 85 1 Canada 0% 7/24PS, PSOC, DASS, PSI-SF

DBC

Leung, Fan & Sanders (2012)

4 RCT 1 T, 1 C Group Triple PDevelopmental

disabilityPre, Post, 6mo FU

81 2 20 4.18 (NR) 70.1 1 Hong Kong7.1%/10.3%

8/74PSS, PS, PPC

ECBI

Leung, Sanders, et al. (2003)

4 RCT 1 T, 1 C Group Triple P Registered with child health center

Pre, Post 91 2 21 4.23 (3-7) 63.8 1 Hong Kong 28.3%/20% 4/91PS, PSOC, PPC, RQI

PDR, ECBI, SDQ

Leung, Sanders, Ip, & Lau (2006)

4 U 1 T Group Triple PSelf-referral to child

health servicePre, Post 661 2 16 3.3 (2-12) 65.4 1 Hong Kong NR 40/480

PSOC, PSI, DASS

ECBI

Lindsay, Strand & Davis (2011)

4 U 3 TGroup Triple P (main variant

used)Universal Pre, Post 2207 1 21 9.2 (8-13) 62.3 2 UK 56.3% 157/1078 PS-A, BPS,

WEMWBSSDQ

Little et al (2012) 4 RCT 1 T, 1 C Group Triple P Children in regular children's service

Pre, Post 146 2 18 6.83 (4-9) 71.92 2 UK 8.2%/4.1% NR PS SDQ, ECBI

systems, elevated SDQ score

Markie-Dadds & Sanders (2006a)

4 RCT 1 T, 1 C SD onlyClinical range on ECBI

Pre, Post, 6mo FU

63 3 21 3.6 (2-5) 63 1 Australia 28%/23% NonePS, PSOC, PPC, DASS

ECBI, PDR

Markie-Dadds & Sanders (2006b)

4 RCT 2 T, 1 CSD only; SD and

telephoneClinical range on

ECBI

Pre, Post, 6mo FU

(only sufficient

data at FU for

Enhanced SD group)

41 3 20 3.9 (2-6) 76 1 Australia0%/

7.14%/0%NR

PS, PSOC, PPC, DASS

ECBI, PDR

Martin & Sanders (2003)


Triple P

Clinical range on SDQ, work-home

management distress

Pre, Post, 4mo FU

45 3 20 5.8 (2-9) NR 1 Australia 30.4%/50% NRDASS, PS, PSBC

ECBI, SDQ

Matsumoto, Sofronoff & Sanders (2007)

4 RCT 1 T, 1 C Group Triple PAt least one parent Japanese but living

in Australia

Pre, Post, 3mo FU

50 1 20 4.9 (2-10) 54 1Australia (Japanese parents)

NR 3/50PS, PPC, RQI, PSBC, DASS

ECBI

Matsumoto, Sofronoff & Sanders (2010)

4 RCT 1 T, 1 C Group Triple P Universal Pre, Post 54 1 175.8 (2.2-

10.3)NR 1 Japan 10.71%/0% NR

PS, PPC, RQI, PSBC, DASS

ECBI, SDQ

McTaggart & Sanders (2005)

1, 4

CRT 2 T, 1 CInfo campaign; Group Triple P


423 1 18Year one students

53 1 Australia 16%/29% NRPS, PSOC, ADAS, DASS

ECBI

Mejia, Calam & Sanders (2013)

2 RCT 1 T, 1 CBrief Discussion

Group (disobedience)

Some level of behavioral difficulty, score >96 (mean) in

ECBI

Pre, Post, 3mo FU, 6

mo FU108 2 22

8.49 (3-12)

70.4 1 Panama 11%/14% 3/108 DASS, PS ECBI

Moharreri (2008) 4 RCT 1 T, 1 C Group Triple P ADHD Pre, Post 60 3 15 8.8 (6-12) NR 2 Iran NR NRPS, PPC, DASS

Morawska & Sanders (2006b)

4 U 1 T SD and telephone

Parents expressed concern

Pre, Post, 3mo FU

110 2 20 2.2 (1.5-3)

62.7 1 Australia 26.4% 35/115 PS, TCQ, PAI, PPC,

ECBI


FU)

RQI, DASS

Morawska & Sanders (2006a)

4 RCT 2 T, 1 CSD only, SD and

telephoneParents expressed

concern

Pre, Post, 6mo FU


FU)

126 2 212.2 (1.5-

3)50.8 1 Australia

19.1%/4.7%/9.8%

77/184

PS, TCQ, PAI, PPC, RQI, DASS, FOS

ECBI, FOS

Morawska & Sanders (2009)

4 RCT 1 T, 1 CGifted and

Talented Triple P

Gifted and talented child - formal

cognitive assessment or

identified by school

Pre, Post, 6mo FU (no

sufficient data for

FU)

75 2 217.81 (3-

10)60 1 Australia

10.81%/2.63%

7/75PTC, PS, PPC, RQI, DASS

ECBI, SDQ

Morawska, Haslam, et al. (2011)

2 RCT 1 T, 1 CBrief Discussion

Group (disobedience)

Parents with concerns of child

disobedience

Pre, Post, 6mo FU

67 2 21 3.63 (2-5) 52.2 1 Australia18.2%/17.6%

1/67PS, PTC, PES

ECBI

Morawska, Tometzki & Sanders (2013)

1 RCT 1 T, 1 CListened to 7

Triple P podcasts online


Pre, Post, 6mo FU

140 2 216.04 (2-

10)62.1 1 Australia

37.8%/16.7%

9/140CAPES, PS, PTC

ECBI, CAPES

Naumann (2007) 4 CRT 1 T, 1 C Group Triple P UniversalPre, Post, 6mo FU

280 1 184.5 (2.6-

6)51 2 Germany NR 195/474

PPQ, PS, PSBC, FSW

Nicholson & Sanders (1999)

4 RCT2 T

(pooled), 1 C

Standard or SD (pooled in analysis)

Clinical range on CBCL, and 5 ODD or 3 CD symptoms in

last 6 months

Pre, Post 60 3 17 9.6 (7-12) 64.3 1 Australia36.4%/42.9%/5.8%

NR PPC CBCL, PDR

Ollefs et al (2008) 4 U 1 TGroup Teen

Triple P

Parent reported externalising

behavior problemsPre, Post 21 2 15

13 (11-18)

70.5 2Germany and Switzerland

0% 3/21 PS-A, BDI CBCL

Penthin (2005) 4 U 1 T Group Triple P Children with and without potential

Pre, Post 29 2 15 NR (4-11) 52 2 Germany NR NR PS ECBI

ADHD

Plant & Sanders (2007)

4, 5

RCT 2 T, 1 C

Standard Stepping Stones;

Standard Stepping Stones + Enhanced (6

sessions on coping)

Developmental disability and clinical

range on ECBI

Pre, Post, 12mo FU

74 3 204.6 (max.

6)74.3 1 Australia 0%/0%/0% None

FOS, PS, PSOC, DASS, ADAS

FOS, DBC, CPC

Pouretemad (2009)

4 U 1 T Group Triple PADHD and referred

to clinic

Base, Pre, Mid, Post,

2mo FU8 3 14 NR NR 2 Iran NR None PSI

Ralph & Sanders (2003)

4 U 1 TGroup Teen

Triple PUniversal Pre, Post 37 1 14

NR (12-13)

NR 1 Australia 29.7% NonePS-A, PPC, PBS, DASS

Reis (2004) 4 RCT 1 T, 1 CStandard

Stepping StonesDevelopmental

disability



FU)

43 2 18 4.35 (2-7) 79 2 Australia 28%/16.7% None FOS FOS

Roberts, Mazzucchelli, et al.(2006)

4/5

RCT 1 T, 1 C Stepping StonesDevelopmental disability and

behavior problems

Pre, Post, 6mo FU


FU)

48 2 20 4.3 (2-7) 79.2 1 Australia29.17%/

25%23/47

FOS, DASS, PS

FOS, DBC

Rogers et al. (2003)a

4/5

U 1 T

Group Triple P; Standard Triple


ADHD characteristics

Pre, Post 83 3 15 5 (2-15) 67 2 Australia NR NonePSOC, PPC, PS, DASS

Roux, Sofronoff, Sanders (2013)

4 RCT 1 T, 1 C Group Stepping Stones

Diagnosis of ASD, Down Syndrome,

Pre, Post, 6mo FU

52 2 16 4.74 (2-9) 55.8 1 Australia 14.2%/20.8%

NR PS, PPC, DASS, RQI

ECBI, DBC

Cerebral Palsy or other intellectual

disability

Salari (2009) 4 QE 1 T, 1 CStandard Teen

Triple P

Teenager scoring in elevated range on

SDQ

Pre, Post, 3mo FU

62 3 2012.92

(11-16)54.8 1 Australia

27.59%/10.3%

5/62PS, PPC, RQI, DASS

SDQ

Salmon (2013) 4 RCTf 2 T

Group Triple P; Emotion

Enhanced Group Triple P

Elevated score based on 15 item

version of ECBI

Pre, Post, 4mo FU


FU)

42 3 20 4.9 (3-6) 57.14 1 New Zealand17.39%/5.26%

NRPS, PTC, DASS, PPC

ECBI, SDQ

Sanders & McFarland (2000)

4, 5

RCTf 2 TStandard Triple


Child with ODD or CD & mother with major depression

Pre, Post, 6mo FU

47 3 18 4.4 (3-9) 74.5 1 Australia 21%/13% 22/61FOS, BDI, ATQ, PSOC

CBCL, PDR, FOS

Sanders, Baker & Turner (2012)

4 RCT 1 T, 1 C OnlineClinical range on


116 3 21 4.7 (2-9) 67 1 Australia 5%/10.7% 6/60PS, PTC, DASS, PAI, PPC

ECBI, SDQ, FOS

Sanders, Bor & Morawska (2007) d

4, 5

RCT 3 T, 1 CStandard, SD,

Enhanced

Elevated ECBI score and at least one family adversity

factor

36mo FU 305 3 203.4 (all aged 3)

68 1 Australia N/A 226/529

FOS, BDI, CAP, PS, PSOC, PPC, ADAS, DASS

FOS, ECBI, PDR

Sanders, Calam, et al. (2008)

1, 4

RCTf 2 T

TV Series 'Driving Mum and Dad Mad';

TV Series + SD + website access + email helpline


454 1 20 5.45(2-9) 64.9 1 UK43.4%/56.7%

14/454PS, PPC, PAI, PTC, RQI, DASS

ECBI

Sanders, Dittman, et al. (2013)

4 RCTf 2 TOnline Triple P;

Self directed Triple P

Elevated score based on 15 item

version of ECBI

Pre, Post, 6mo FU


FU)

193 3 21 5.63 (3-8) 67 1 New Zealand 8%/8% 148/338

PS, PTC, PAI, DASS, CAPI, PPC, RQI

ECBI

Sanders, Markie-Dadds, et al. (2000a)

4, 5

RCT 3 T, 1 CStandard, SD,

Enhanced

Elevated ECBI score and at least one family adversity

factor

Pre, Post, 12mo FU

305 3 203.4 (all aged 3)

68 1 Australia

16.9%/18.7%/23.7%/7.8%

226/529FOS, PS, PSOC, PPC, ADAS, DASS

FOS, ECBI, PDR

Sanders, Montgomery, et al. (2000)

1 RCT 1 T, 1 C

Watched TV Series

("Families" program)


56 1 17 4.6 (2-8) 59 1 Australia NR NonePS, PSOC, DASS, PPC

ECBI

Sanders, Pidgeon, et al. (2004)

4, 5

RCTf 2 T

Group Triple P; Group Triple P +

4 group sessions on risk factors of child

abuse and neglect

Parents elevated on STAXI, contact with

care agency

Pre, Post, 6mo FU

98 3 16 4.4 (2-7) 50 1 Australia 8.3%/16%

Group: 4/48; Enhanced: 2/50

STAXI, PAI, CAPI, PS, PSOC, DASS, PPC

FOS, ECBI, PDRC, HCPC

Sanders, Prior & Ralph (2009)

2 QE 2 T, 1 C

1 Triple P seminar (partial

exposure); 3 Triple seminars (full exposure)

Universal Pre, Post 244 1 19 5.5 (4-7) NR 1 Australia60%/

57.5%/ 24.1%

21/107PSBC, PS, PPC, RQI, DASS

SDQ

Sanders, Rebgetz, et al. (1989)

4 RCT 1 T, 1 C

8-week individual program

focussed on abdominal pain

Child with recurrent abdominal pain

Pre, Post, 3mo FU

16 2 16 9 (6-12) NR 1 Australia NR None FOS RBPC, FOS

Sanders, Shepherd, et al. (1994)

4 RCTf 2 T6-week

individual sessions with

Child with recurrent abdominal pain


44 2 18 9.2 (7-14) 36.4 1 Australia NR None CBCL

focus on abdominal pain; 4-6 sessions of paediatric care

Schmid et al (2007)b 4 CRT 1 T, 1 C

Self directed + 10 weekly

phone calls (20-30 mins)


904 1 18 8.9 (NR) 53.6 2 Switzerland17.91%/

0.6%NR RAS KINDL

Schmidt (2012) 4 U 1 TGroup (94%) and Standard

(6%)

Child with identified externalising

behavioral difficultyPre, Post 126 2 16

6.83 (2-15)

69 2 Canada 37% 50/166PS, PSOC, PPC, DASS, RQI

SDQ

Sofronoff, Jahnel & Sanders (2011)

2 RCT 1 T, 1 CStepping Stones

Triple P Seminars

Child with disability

Pre, Post, 3mo FU


FU)

53 2 196.15 (2-

10)71.7 1 Australia

22.86%/22.86%

4/54PS, PSOC, PPC, RQI, DASS

ECBI

Spry (2013) 4 RCT 1 T, 1 CBaby Triple P

(Group)

Couples pregnant 20-35 weeks with

first baby

Pre, Post, 3mo FU

129 1 20

20-35 weeks

pregnant at

baseline

NR 1 Australia 7.5%/9.7% 129/258SWLS, EPDS, FAPBI

Stallman & Ralph (2007)

4 RCT 2 T, 1 CSD Teen and SD Teen + phone


Pre, Post, 3mo FU


FU)

51 2 2012.27

(11-14)60.8 1 Australia

22.2%/23.5%/ 12.5%

1/17 PS-A, DASS SDQ

Stallman & Sanders (2013)

5 RCT 1 T, 1 CFamily

Transitions Triple P

Parent concerned about problems with co-parental

conflict, parenting, or child behavior

following a

Pre, Post, 12mo FU

205 2 208.15 (2-

14)59 1 Australia

22.5%/16.4%

NRPS, AS, DASS, STAXI

ECBI

relationship breakdown within

last 4 years

Tellegen & Sanders (2013)

3 RCT 1 T, 1 CPrimary Care

Stepping StonesASD diagnosis

Pre, Post, 6mo FU

64 2 21 5.7 (2-9) 86 1 Australia 17%/10% 3/64

PS, DASS, PTC, PSS, RQI, PPC, FOS

ECBI, FOS

Tsivos (2013) 4 RCT 1 T, 1 CBaby Triple P

(individual sessions)

Mothers with Postnatal

Depression, confirmed by SCID &

score 10+ on Edinburgh Postnatal

Depression Scale

Pre, Post, 3mo FU

27 3 216.2mths

(0-12mths)

44 1 UK14.3%/23.1%

NoneBDI-II, OHI, WPL, BPBS-b

Turner & Sanders (2006)

3 RCT 1 T, 1 CPrimary Care


concern

Pre, Post, 6mo FU (no

data for FU)

30 2 21 3.3 (2-6) 53.3 1 Australia18.75%/14.28%

1/25PS, FOS, PSOC, DASS

ECBI, PDR, HCPC, FOS

Turner, Richards & Sanders (2007)

4 RCT 1 T, 1 CGroup

IndigenousParents expressed

concernPre, Post, 6mo FU

51 2 18 5.8 (1-13) 64.7 1Australia

(Indigenous families)

23.1%/28% 3/51 PS, DASS ECBI, SDQ

Turner, Sanders, Wall (1994)

4 RCTf 2 T

6 weekly sessions on

child-management strategies in relation to

feeding and mealtimes; Standard Dietary

Education (3-4 sessions of 30-

50 minutes)

Child with persistent feeding difficulties

Pre, Post, 3-4mo FU

20 2 202.79 (1.5-

5)50 1 Australia 16.7% total None

MOS, BDI, PSOC, ADAS

CBCL, MOS

Valvoi, Cobham, Sanders (2010)

4 RCT 1 T, 1 CFear-less Triple

P

Met criteria for one or more Anxiety

Disorder using ADIS-IV-C/P

Pre, Post, 3mo FU

30 3 16 9.3 (7-13) 46.75 1 Australia 11.7%/0% NR EMBU-P SCAS, CBCL

Walsh (2008) 4 U 1 TGroup Stepping

Stones

Developmental disability and parent

report child behavior problems

Pre, Post 79 2 165.88 (1.5-

15)69.6 2 Australia 15% 8/79 DASS DBC

West, Sanders, Cleghorn & Davies (2010)

5 RCT 1 T, CLifestyle Triple

P

Child described by parent as

overweight

Pre, Post, 12mo FU

101 2 21 8.5 (4-11) 32.7 1 Australia21.2%/6.1%

3/101 LBC, PS LBC

Whittingham (2007)

4 RCT 1 T, 1 CStepping Stones

(group and individual)

ASD diagnosisPre, Post, 6mo FU

59 2 20 5.9 (2-9) 79.7 1 Australia 0%/0% 4/59PS, PSOC, DASS, PPC, RQI

ECBI, DBC

Wiggins, Sofronoff & Sanders (2009)

5 RCT 1 T, 1 CPathways Triple

P

Parents concerned about relationship

with child, and child emotional/

behavioral problems

Pre, Post, 3mo FU


FU)

60 3 19 6.2 (4-10) 76.7 1 Australia 10%/27% 4/60 PS CBCL

Winkler (2006) 3 RCT 1 T, 1 CPrimary Care


concernPre, Post 48 2 20 4.5 (2-8) 62.5 2 Germany 3.6%/0% NR PS, PSOC SDQ

Winter (2011) 4 U 1 T Group Triple PAttending parenting

clinicPre, Post 91 2 16

3.85 (2-10)

NR 1 Australia 36% 47/91 PS, PTC ECBI

Note. ADAS = Abrreviated Dyadic Adjustment Scale; ADHD = Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; ADIS = Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule; AS = Acrimony Scale; ASD = Autism Spectrum Disorder; APQ = Alabama Parenting Questionnaire; ATQ = Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire; BDI = Beck Depression Inventory; BPBS-b = Brief Parenting Beliefs Scale-baby version; BPS = Being a Parent Scale; C = control group; CAP = Child Attention Problems Rating Scale; CAPI = Child Abuse Potential Inventory; CAPES = Child Adjustment and Parenting Efficacy Scale; CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist; CD = Conduct Disorder; CES-D = Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale; CPC = Caregiving Problem Checklist; CRT = Cluster Randomized Trial; DASS = Depression Anxiety Stress Scales; DBC = Developmental Behavior Checklist; ECBI = Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory; EMBU-P = Egna Minnen Betraffende Uppfostran (My Memories of Upbringing); EMS = ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale; EPDS = Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale; FAPBI = Frequency and Acceptability of Partner Behaviour Inventory; FBB = Fremdbeurteilungsbogen; FOS = Family Observation Schedule; FSW = Fragen zur Selbstwirksamkeit; FU = Follow-Up; GLS = General Life Satisfaction Questionnaire; HCPC = Home and Community Problem Checklist; KINDL = Questionnaire for Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Children; LBC = Lifestyle Behaviour Checklist; LS = Life Satisfaction scale; MCI = Marital Communication Inventory; MO = Month; MOS = Mealtime Observation Schedule; N/A = Not applicable; NR =

Not reported; ODD = Oppositional Defiant Disorder; OHI = Oxford Happiness Inventory; PAI = Parental Anger Inventory; PATFA = Parent and Toddler Feeding Assessment; PBS = Parenting Belief Scale; PCTP = Primary Care Triple P; PDR = Parent Daily Report; PDRC = Parent Daily Report Checklist; PES = Parenting Experience Survey; PPC = Parent Problem Checklist; PPQ =Positive Parenting Questionnaire; PS = Parenting Scale; PS-A = Parenting Scale-Adolescent; PSBC = Problem Setting and Behaviour Checklist; PSE = Parental Self Efficacy; PSI = Parenting Stress Index; PSI-SF = Parenting Stress Index - Short Form; PSOC = Parenting Sense of Competence; PSS = Parental Stress Scale; PTC = Parenting Tasks Checklist; QE = Quasi-Experimental; RAS = Relationship Assessment Scale; RBPC = Revised Behaviour Problem Checklist; RCT = randomized controlled trial; RQI = Relationship Quality Inventory; RS = Resilience Scale; SBQ =Social Behaviour Questionnaire; SCAS = Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale; SCID = Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnosing DSM-IV disoders; SD = Self-Directed; SDQ = Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; SOC = Shopping Observation Checklist; STAXI = State Trait Anger Expression Inventory; SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale; T = treatment group; TCQ = Toddler Care Questionnaire; U = Uncontrolled study; UK = United Kingdom; USA = United States of America; WEMWBS = Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale; WPL = What being the Parent of a new baby is LikeFor developer involvement: 1 = Any developer involvement, 2 = No developer involvementFor study approach: 1 = Universal, 2 = Targeted, 3 = Treatmenta Cann, Rogers & Matthews (2003), Cann, Rogers & Worley (2003), and Rogers et al. (2003) studies are all based on the same sample; b Cina et al. (2011) and Schmid et al. (2007) are studies based on the same samplec Glazemakers (2012) Trial A and Trial B are from the same reference.d Sanders, Bor & Morawska (2007) only contributes follow-up data to the same sample as Sanders, Markie-Dadds, et al. (2000a)e Heinrichs et al. (2009) only contributes follow-up data to the same sample Heinrichs (2006a)f The data contained in these studies were analyzed as uncontrolled trial data as Triple P was only compared with an active comparison group

Appendix G

Study characteristics of population-level and controlled case study trials of Triple P

Paper Level Design Groups Version of Triple P/control treatment

Sample criteria Measure Times

Sample size Approach Child mean age (range)

% boys Developer Involveme

nt

Country Attrition rate post

T1/C or T1/T2/C

Father data

Parent measures

Child measures

Population Studies

Prinz, Sanders, et al. (2009)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Pre-post place-based randomized design. Stratified random assignment of 18

medium-sized counties, controlling

for county population size,

county poverty rate, and county child

abuse rate.

1 T, 1 C All levels of Triple P; Care as Usual

Universal Pre, Post (2 yr

intervention period)

18 counties: Mean population for

treatment counties = 96,054; control counties =

99,216

1 NR (0-8) NR 1 USA N/A N/A Substantiated CM, Child out of home placements, and hospitalisations or emergency room visits for CM injuries

Substantiated CM, Child out of home placements, and hospitalisations or emergency room visits for CM injuries

Sanders, Ralph, Sofronoff, et al. (2008)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Quasi-experimental. Comparison of two sets of catchment areas. Participants

were randomly selected to complete

survey from catchment areas.

1 T, 1 C All levels of Triple P; Care as Usual

Universal Pre, Post (2 yr

intervention period)

20 catchment areas; Time 1 = 2999, Time 2 =

3004 completed survey

1 5.47 at Time 1 (4-7)

53.18% at Time

1

1 Australia N/A Time 1: 648/2999; Time 2: NR

Questions on parent depression, confidence, stress, social support, use of strategies, consistency

SDQ, Single item on child problems

Zubrick, Ward, et al. (2005)

4 Quasi-experimental two group

longitudinal design

1 T, 1 C Group Triple P; Care as Usual

Universal Pre, Post, 12mo FU, 24mo FU

1610 1 3.73 (2.25-5.62)

56.7% 1 Australia 14%/4% 16/1610 PS, DASS, PPC, ADAS

ECBI

Controlled Case Studies

Beames, Sanders & Bor (1992)

4 Multiple baseline across subjects

N/A Nine individual sessions with

parent and child

Children suffering chronic headaches

for at least 4 months

Baseline, Treatment, 6mo FU

2 2 9.5 (9-10) 0% 1 Australia 0% NR Headache Diary, Activity Measure, CDI, Parent Observation of Headache Behavior, Teacher Observation of School Headache Behavior

Dadds, Sanders, Behrens & James (1987)

5 Multiple baseline across families

N/A Individual sessions with parents

ranging from 5-8 one hour sessions and four 1.5-hour partner support

sessions

Child met criteria according to DSM-III for oppositional or conduct disorder and parents with

marital discord (low score on LWMAT)


4 3 3.83 (3.67-4.08)

100% 1 Australia 0% NR LWMAT, FOS FOS, CBPC

Dadds, Sanders & James (1987) (Sample A)


N/A Nine individual sessions with

parents, 2 at clinic and 7 at home

Child met criteria according to DSM-III for oppositional or conduct disorder


6 3 3.75 (3.17-5.17)

100% 1 Australia 0% N/A FOS CBPC, FOS, problem setting checklist

Dadds, Sanders & James (1987) (Sample B)


N/A Eleven individual sessions with

parents at clinic and home

(including 4 partner support

sessions)

Child met criteria according to DSM-III for oppositional or conduct disorder


6 3 4.42 (3.17-6.08)

66% 1 Australia 0% N/A FOS CBPC, FOS, problem setting checklist

Devilly & Sanders (1993)

4 Non-concurrent multiple baseline across subjects design

N/A Nine weeks of individual therapy

with child and parent

Child suffering chronic headaches


1 2 8 100% 1 Australia 0% 1/1 STAI, BDI Headache Diary, CDI, RMAS

Sanders (1980)

4 Single-subject partial reversal design

N/A 10 week group program with other parents

Child who displayed high rates of whining

and demanding behaviors

Baseline, Treatment

1 2 1.67 100% 1 Australia 0% N/A FOS CBPC, FOS, Daily record of frequency of problem behaviors

Sanders (1982a)


N/A Individual sessions with parents at

clinic and at home

Children who displayed high rates

of oppositional behavior


2 2 4.75 (4.5-5.08)

100% 1 Australia 0% NR FOS FOS

Sanders (1982b) (Sample A)


N/A Individual and group sessions with parents at clinic and home

Children who exhibited high rates of demanding, non-

compliant, and aggressive behavior

Baseline, Treatment

2 2 6.08 (4-8.17) 50% 1 Australia 0% NR FOS CBPC, FOS, Daily record of frequency of problem behaviors

Sanders (1982b) (Sample B)

4 Combined multiple-baseline across subjects, partial withdrawal design

N/A Individual and group sessions with parents at clinic and home

Children who displayed high rates of non-compliant,

demanding and tantruming behaviors

Baseline, Treatment

2 2 3.17 (2.08-4.25)

100% 1 Australia 0% N/A FOS CBPC, FOS, Daily record of frequency of problem behaviors

Sanders, Bor & Dadds (1984)


N/A Individual sessions with parents outlining a

planned activities routine related to sleep (including

10 nightly phone calls)

Children who displayed persistent

patterns of disturbed sleep and

parents reported difficulties with

oppositional behavior at bedtime


4 2 NR (2.5-4.1) NR 1 Australia 0% NR FOS - Bedtime specific

CBPC, HCPC, FOS - Bedtime specific

Sanders & Dadds (1982)


N/A Individual sessions with parents at

home


of disruptive, noncompliant, and

demanding behaviors

Baseline, Treatment

5 2 4.3 (3.42-5.17)

100% 1 Australia 0% NR FOS FOS

Sanders & Glynn (1981)


N/A Individual sessions with parents at clinic and home


of disruptive, noncompliant, and

demanding behaviors


5 2 3.5 (2.75-4.67)

60% 1 New Zealand

0% NR FOS FOS, frequency of problem settings

Sanders & Plant (1989)

4 Multiple baseline across subjects, with no treatment control subject

N/A Individual sessions with parents at clinic and home

(nine weeks)

Children displayed high levels of

disruptive, non-compliant, and

demanding behavior. They were also diagnosed with

a developmental disorder and DSM-III

diagnosis of ODD.


5 3 4.42 (3-5.25) 80% 1 Australia 20% NR FOS FOS

Venning, Blampied & France (2003)

4 Baseline-intervention replications across subjects

N/A Level 4 Standard Triple P. Individual

sessions for 12 weeks with parent in clinic and home

Children who stole at least once per week and lied at

least three times per week.

Baseline, Treatment, 2.5mo FU

2 2 8 (6-10) 100% 2 New Zealand

0% N/A DASS, PSOC ECBI, PDR

Note. ADAS = Abbreviated Dyadic Adjustment Scale; BDI = Becks Depression Inventory; C = Control group; CBPC = Child Behavior Problem Checklist; CDI = Child Depression Inventory; CM = Child Maltreatment; DASS = Depression Anxiety Stress Scale; DSM = Diagnositc and Statistical Manual; ECBI = Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory; FOS = Family Observation Schedule; FU = Follow-Up; HCPC = Home and Community Problem Checklist; LWMAT = Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test; N/A = Not applicable; NR = Not reported; ODD = Oppositional Defiant Disorder; PDR = Parent Daily Report; PPC = Parent Problem Checklist; PS = Parenting Scale; PSOC = Parent Sence of Competence; RMAS = Revised Manifest Anxiety Scale; SDQ = Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; STAI = Stait-Trait Anxiety Inventory; T = Treatment group; USA = United States of AmericaFor developer involvement: 1 = Any developer involvement, 2 = No developer involvementFor study approach: 1 = Universal, 2 = Targeted, 3 = Treatment

Appendix H

References only included in qualitative and quantitative meta-analyses

Adamson, M., Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2013). Childhood feeding difficulties: A

randomised controlled trial of a group-based parenting intervention. Journal of

Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 34, 293-302.

Aurin, S. (2012). Survival Kit for Adolescents’ Parents? A Randomized Control Trial of a

Universal Preventative Positive Parenting Program for Parents of Teenagers: Group

Teen Triple P (Unpublished master’s thesis). Braunschweig, Germany.

Beames, L., Sanders, M. R., & Bor, W. (1992). The role of parent training in the cognitive

behavioral treatment of children's headaches. Behavioural Psychotherapy, 20, 167-

180. doi: 10.1017/S0141347300016943

Bjornstad, G. (2009). An investigation of self-help behavioural interventions for conduct

problems in children (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oxford,

Oxford, UK.

Bodenmann, G., Cina, A., Ledermann, T., & Sanders, M. R. (2008). The efficacy of the

Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in improving parenting and child behavior: A

comparison with two other treatment conditions. Behaviour Research and Therapy,

46, 411-427. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2008.01.001

Boyle, C., Sanders, M. R., Lutzker, J. R., Prinz, R. J., Shapiro, C. J., & Whitaker, D. J.

(2010). An analysis of training, generalization and maintenance effects of Primary

Care Triple P for parents of preschool-aged children with disruptive behavior. Child

Psychiatry and Human Development, 41, 114-131.

Brown, S. (2010). Surviving multiples: An evaluation of a group behavioural parenting

intervention for parents of twins and triplets (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The

University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Cann, W., Rogers, H., & Matthews, J. (2003). Family Intervention Services program

evaluation: A brief report on initial outcomes for families. Australian e-Journal for

the Advancement of Mental Health, 2. doi: 10.5172/jamh.2.3.208

Cann, W., Rogers, H., & Worley, G. (2003). Report on a program evaluation of a telephone

assisted parenting support service for families living in isolated rural areas. Australian

e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 2. doi: 10.5172/jamh.2.3.201

Cassidy, K. (2001). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Stepping Stones Tip sheets to Manage

Challenging Behaviours in Children with Developmental Disability (Unpublished

masters thesis). Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia.

Chan, S. K.-C., & Leung, C. S., M. R. (2013). A Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare

the Effects of Directive and Non-directive Parenting Programs. Manuscript submitted

for publication.

Chand, N. L., Farruggia, S. P., Dittman, C. K., Chu, J. T. W., & Sanders, M. R. (2013).

Promoting positive youth development through a brief parenting intervention

program. Youth Studies Australia, 32, 29-36.

Child and Adolescent Community Health Service. (2011). Seminar Series Triple P: Pilot

Evaluation Report. Perth, Australia.

Chu, J., Bullen, P., Farruggia, S. P., Dittman, C. K., & Sanders, M. R. (2013). Parent and

Adolescent Effects of a Universal Group Program for the Parenting of Adolescents.

Manuscript submitted for publication.

Cina, A., Ledermann, T., Meyer, J., Gabriel, B., & Bodenmann, G. (2004). Triple P in der

Schweiz: Zufriedenheit, Akzeptanz und Wirksamkeit (No. 162) [Triple P in

Switzerland: Satisfaction, acceptance, and effectiveness]. Institute for Family

Research and Counseling, University of Fribourg, Switzerland.

Cina, A., Röösli, M., Schmid, H., Lattmann, U. P., Barbara Fäh, Schönenberger, M., . . .

Bodenmann, G. (2011). Enhancing positive development of children: Effects of a

multilevel randomized controlled intervention on parenting and child problem

behavior. Family Science, 2, 43-57. doi: 10.1080/19424620.2011.601903

Connell, S., Sanders, M. R., & Markie-Dadds, C. (1997). Self-directed behavioral family

intervention for parents of oppositional children in rural and remote areas. Behavior

Modification, 21, 379-408. doi: 10.1177/01454455970214001

Crisante, L. (2003). Training in parent consultation skills for primary care practitioners in

early intervention in the pre-school context. Australian e-Journal for the

Advancement of Mental Health, 2. doi: 10.5172/jamh.2.3.191

Crisante, L., & Ng, S. (2003). Implementation and process issues in using Group Triple P

with Chinese parents: Preliminary findings. Australian e-Journal for the Advancement

of Mental Health, 2. doi: 10.5172/jamh.2.3.226

Dadds, M. R., Sanders, M. R., Behrens, B. C., & James, J. E. (1987). Marital discord and

child behavior problems: A description of family interactions during treatment.

Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 16, 192-203. doi:

10.1207/s15374424jccp1603_3

Dadds, M. R., Sanders, M. R., & James, J. E. (1987). The generalization of treatment effects

in parent training with multidistressed parents. Behavioural Psychotherapy, 15, 289-

313. doi: 10.1017/S0141347300012696

de Graaf, I., Haverman, M., Onrust, S., & Tavecchio, L. (2009). Improving parenting and its

impact on parental psychopathology: Trial of the Triple P Positive Parenting

Program. The Netherlands: Trimbos Institut.

de Graaf, I., Onrust, S., Haverman, M., & Janssens, J. (2009). Helping families improve: An

evaluation of two primary care approaches to parenting support in the Netherlands.

Infant and Child Development, 18, 481-501.

Dean, C., Myors, K., & Evans, E. (2003). Community-wide implementation of a parenting

program: The South East Sydney Positive Parenting Project. Australian e-Journal for

the Advancement of Mental Health, 2. doi: 10.5172/jamh.2.3.179

Devilly, G. J., & Sanders, M. R. (1993). "Hey dad, watch me": The effects of training a child

to teach pain management skills to a parent with recurrent headaches. Behaviour

Change, 10, 237-243.

Doherty, F. (2012). Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) for Families of Adolescents with

Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomised Controlled Trial of Self-directed Teen Triple P.

(Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Eichelberger, I., Pluck, J., Hanish, C., Hautmann, C., Janen, N., & Dopfner, M. (2010).

Effekte universeller Pravention mit dem Gruppenformat des Eltern-trainings Triple P

auf das kindliche Problemverhalten, das elterliche Erziehungsverhalten und die

psychische Belastung der Eltern. Zeitschrift fuer Klinische Psychologie und

Psychotherapie, 39, 24-32.

Eisner, M., Nagin, D., Ribeaud, D., & Malti, T. (2012). Effects of a universal parenting

program for highly adherent parents: a propensity score matching approach.

Prevention Science, 13, 252-266.

Fujiwara, T., Kato, N., & Sanders, M. R. (2011). Effectiveness of Group Positive Parenting

Program (Triple P) in Changing Child Behavior, Parenting Style, and Parental

Adjustment: An Intervention Study in Japan. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20,

804-813. doi: 10.1007/s10826-011-9448-1

Glazemakers, I. (2012). A population health approach to parenting support: Disseminating

the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in the province of Antwerp. (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerp, Belgium.

Glazemakers, I., & Deboutte, D. (2012). Modifying the 'Positive Parenting Program' for

parents with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. doi:

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01566.x

Hahlweg, K., Heinrichs, N., Kuschel, A., & Feldmann, M. (2008). Therapist-Assisted, Self-

Administered Bibliotherapy to Enhance Parental Competence: Short- and Long-Term

Effects. Behavior Modification, 32, 659-681.

Hampel, O. A., Schaadt, A. K., Hasmann, S. E., Petermann, F., Holl, R., & Hasmann, R.

(2010). Evaluation von Stepping Stones Triple P: Zwischenergebnisse der Stepping-

Stones-SPZMulticenterstudie Evaluation of Stepping Stones Triple P: Interims

analysis of the Stepping-Stones-SPC-Multicentric Study. Klin Padiatr, 222, 18– 25.

Harrison, J. (2006). Evaluation of a group behavioural family intervention for families of

young children with developmental disabilities. (Unpublished honours thesis). Charles

Sturt University. Wagga Wagga, Australia.

Hartung, D., & Hahlweg, K. (2010). Strengthening Parent Well-Being at the Work–Family

Interface: A German Trial on Workplace Triple P. Journal of Community & Applied

Social Psychology, 20, 404-418. doi: 10.1002/casp.1046

Haslam, D. M., Sofronoff, K., & Sanders, M. R. (2012). Reducing Work and Family Conflict

in Teachers: A Randomised Controlled Trial of Workplace Triple P. School Mental

Health. doi: 10.1007/s12310-012-9091-z

Heinrichs, N., Hahlweg, K., Bertram, H., Kuschel, A., Naumann, S., & Harstick, S. (2006).

Die langfristige Wirksamkeit eines Elterntrainings zur universellen Praevention

kindlicher Verhaltensstoerungen: Ergebnisse aus Sicht der Muetter und Vaeter [Long

term effectiveness of a parent training for universal prevention of child behavior

disorders]. Zeitschrift fuer Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 35, 72-86.

Heinrichs, N., Hahlweg, K., Naumann, S., Kuschel, A., Bertram, H., & Stander, D. (2009).

Universelle prävention kindlicher verhaltensstörungen mithilfe einer elternzentrierten

maßnahme: Ergebnisse drei Jahre nach teilnahme. / Universal prevention of child

behavior problems with a parent training. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und

Psychotherapie: Forschung und Praxis, 38, 79-88.

Heinrichs, N., Krueger, S., & Guse, U. (2006). Der Einfluss von Anreizen auf die

Rekrutierung von Eltern und auf die Effektivitaet eines praeventiven Elterntrainings

[The effects of incentives on recruitment rates of parents and the effectiveness of a

preventative parent training]. Zeitschrift fuer Klinische Psychologie und

Psychotherapie, 35, 97-108.

Hoath, F. E., & Sanders, M. R. (2002). A feasibility study of Enhanced Group Triple P -

Positive Parenting Program for parents of children with

Attention-deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Behaviour Change, 19, 191-206. doi:

10.1375/bech.19.4.191

Hodges, J., Sheffield, J. K., & Ralph, A. (2013). Home away from home? A randomised

controlled trial of connXionz for boarding school staff. Manuscript submitted for

publication.

Ireland, J. L., Sanders, M. R., & Markie-Dadds, C. (2003). The impact of parent training on

marital functioning: A comparison of two group versions of the Triple P-Positive

Parenting Program for parents of children with early-onset conduct problems.

Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 31, 127-142. doi:

10.1017/s1352465803002017

Joachim, S., Sanders, M. R., & Turner, K. M. T. (2010). Reducing preschoolers' disruptive

behavior in public with a brief parent discussion group. Child Psychiatry and Human

Development, 41, 47-60. doi: 10.1007/s10578-009-0151-z

Kirby, J. N., & Sanders, M. R. (2014). A randomized controlled trial evaluating a parenting

program designed specifically for grandparents. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 52,

35-44.

Lake, J. (2010). An evaluation of the Stepping Stones Triple P Parenting Program and an

investigation of parental perceptions of children recently diagnosed with autism: A

focus group and pilot study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of

Queensland.

Leung, C., Fan, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2013). The effectiveness of Group Triple P with

Chinese parents who have a child with developmental disabilities: A randomized

controlled trial. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 976-984.

Leung, C., Sanders, M. R., Ip, F., & Lau, J. (2006). Implementation of Triple P-Positive

Parenting Program in Hong Kong: Predictors of programme completion and clinical

outcomes. Journal of Children’s Services, 1, 4-17.

Leung, C., Sanders, M. R., Leung, S., Mak, R., & Lau, J. (2003). An outcome evaluation of

the implementation of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in Hong Kong. Family

Process, 42, 531-544. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2003.00531.x

Lindsay, G., Strand, S., & Davis, H. (2011). A comparison of the effectiveness of three

parenting programmes in improving parenting skills, parent mental-well being and

children's behaviour when implemented on a large scale in community settings in 18

English local authorities: the parenting early intervention pathfinder (PEIP). BMC

Public Health, 11, 962.

Little, M., Berry, V., Morpeth, L., Blower, S., Axford, N., Taylor, R., . . . Tobin, K. (2012).

The impact of three evidence-based programmes delivered in public systems in

Birmingham, UK. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 6, 260-272. doi:

0070-ijcv-2012293

Markie-Dadds, C., & Sanders, M. R. (2006a). A controlled evaluation of an enhanced self-

directed behavioural family intervention for parents of children with conduct

problems in rural and remote areas. Behaviour Change, 23, 55-72. doi:

10.1375/bech.23.1.55

Markie-Dadds, C., & Sanders, M. R. (2006b). Self-Directed Triple P (Positive Parenting

Program) for mothers with children at-risk of developing conduct problems.

Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 34, 259-275. doi:

10.1017/s1352465806002797

Martin, A. J., & Sanders, M. R. (2003). Balancing work and family: A controlled evaluation

of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program as a work-site intervention. Child and

Adolescent Mental Health, 8, 161-169. doi: 10.1111/1475-3588.00066

Matsumoto, Y., Sofronoff, K., & Sanders, M. R. (2007). The efficacy and acceptability of the

Triple P-Positive Parenting Program with Japanese parents. Behaviour Change, 24,

205-218. doi: 10.1375/bech.24.4.205

Matsumoto, Y., Sofronoff, K., & Sanders, M. R. (2010). Investigation of the effectiveness

and social validity of the Triple P Positive Parenting Program in Japanese society.

Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 87-91. doi: 10.1037/a0018181

McTaggart, P., & Sanders, M. R. (2005). The transition to school project: A controlled

evaluation of a universal population trial of the Triple P Positive Parenting Program.

Unpublished manuscript, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland,

Australia.

Mejia, A., Calam, R., & Sanders, M. R. (2013). Randomized controlled trial of a parenting

intervention in a developing country. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Moharreri, F., Shahrivar, Z., Tehrani-doost, M., & Mahmoudi-Gharaei, J. (2008). Efficacy of

the Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) for parents of children with Attention

Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry, 3, 59-63.

Morawska, A., Haslam, D., Milne, D., & Sanders, M. R. (2011). Evaluation of a brief

parenting discussion group for parents of young children. Journal of Developmental

and Behavioral Pediatrics, 32, 136-145. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181f17a28

Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2006a). Self-administered behavioral family intervention

for parents of toddlers: Part I. Efficacy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 74, 10-19. doi: 10.1037/0022-006x.74.1.10

Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2006b). Self-administered behavioural family intervention

for parents of toddlers: Effectiveness and dissemination. Behaviour Research and

Therapy, 44, 1839-1848. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.11.015

Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2009). An evaluation of a behavioural parenting

intervention for parents of gifted children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47, 463-

470. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2009.02.008

Morawska, A., Tometzki, H., & Sanders, M. R. (in press). An evaluation of the efficacy of a

Triple P-Positive Parenting Program Podcast Series. Journal of Developmental and

Behavioral Pediatrics.

Naumann, S., Kuschel, A., Bertram, H., Heinrichs, N., & Hahlweg, K. (2007). Förderung der

elternkompetenz durch Triple P-Elternrainings. / Promotion of parental competence

with Triple P. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 56, 676-690.

Nicholson, J. M., & Sanders, M. R. (1999). Randomized controlled trial of behavioral family

intervention for the treatment of child behavior problems in stepfamilies. Journal of

Divorce & Remarriage, 30, 1-23. doi: 10.1300/J087v30n03_01

Ollefs, B. (2008). Jungendliche mit externalem Problemverhalten Effekte von

Elterncoaching. Young people with externalising problem behavior and effects of

parent coaching. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Osnabruck,

Germany.

Penthin, R., Schrader, C., & Mildebrandt, N. (2005). Erfahrungen mit der deutschen Version

des Triple P-Elterntrainings bei Familien mit und ohne ADHS-Problematik

[Experiences with the German version of Triple P parent training with families with

and without ADHS problems]. Zeitschrift fuer Heilpaedigogik, 5, 186-192.

Plant, K. M., & Sanders, M. R. (2007). Reducing problem behavior during care-giving in

families of preschool-aged children with developmental disabilities. Research in

Developmental Disabilities, 28, 362-385. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2006.02.009

Pouretemad, H., Khooshabi, K., Roshanbin, M., & Jadidi, M. (2009). The effectiveness of

Group Positive Parenting Program on parental stress of mothers of children with

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Archives of Iranian Medicine, 12, 60-68.

Prinz, R. J., Sanders, M. R., Shapiro, C. J., Whitaker, D. J., & Lutzker, J. R. (2009).

Population-based prevention of child maltreatment: The U.S. Triple P system

population trial. Prevention Science, 10, 1-12. doi: 10.1007/s11121-009-0123-3

Ralph, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2003). Preliminary evaluation of the Group Teen Triple P

Program for parents of teenagers making the transition to high school. Australian e-

Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 2. doi: 10.5172/jamh.2.3.169

Reis, A. (2004). Behavioural family intervention for families with pre-school children with

disabilities and challenging behaviours: Assessing effects on parent and child play

interactions. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Curtin University of Technology,

Australia.

Roberts, C., Mazzucchelli, T., Studman, L., & Sanders, M. R. (2006). Behavioral family

intervention for children with developmental disabilities and behavioral problems.

Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 180-193. doi:

10.1207/s15374424jccp3502_2

Rogers, H., Cann, W., Cameron, D., Littlefield, L., & Lagioia, V. (2003). Evaluation of the

Family Intervention Service for children presenting with characteristics associated

with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Australian e-Journal for the

Advancement of Mental Health, 2. doi: 10.5172/jamh.2.3.216

Roux, G., Sofronoff, K., & Sanders, M. R. (2013). A Randomized Controlled Trial of Group

Stepping Stones Triple P: A Mixed-Disability Trial. Family Process. doi:

10.1111/famp.12016

Salari, R. (2009). Parent Training Programs for Parents of Teenagers. (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Salmon, K., Dittman, C. K., Sanders, M. R., Burson, R., & Hammington, J. (in press). Does

Adding an Emotion Component Enhance the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program?

Journal of Family Psychology.

Sanders, M., Calam, R., Durand, M., Liversidge, T., & Carmont, S. A. (2008). Does self-

directed and web-based support for parents enhance the effects of viewing a reality

television series based on the Triple P–Positive Parenting Programme? Journal of

Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 924-932. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-

7610.2008.01901.x

Sanders, M. R. (1980). The effects of parent self-recording and home feedback in systematic

parent training. The Exceptional Child, 27, 62-71. doi: 10.1080/0156655800270106

Sanders, M. R. (1982a). The effects of instructions, feedback, and cueing procedures in

behavioural parent training. Australian Journal of Psychology, 34, 53-69. doi:

10.1080/00049538208254717

Sanders, M. R. (1982b). The generalization of parent responding to community settings: The

effects of instructions, plus feedback, and self-management training. Behavioural

Psychotherapy, 10, 273-287. doi: 10.1017/S0141347300007825

Sanders, M. R., Baker, S., & Turner, K. M. T. (2012). A randomized controlled trial

evaluating the efficacy of Triple P Online with parents of children with early onset

conduct problems. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 50, 675-684.

Sanders, M. R., Bor, B., & Dadds, M. (1984). Modifying bedtime disruptions in children

using stimulus control and contingency management techniques. Behavioural

Psychotherapy, 12, 130-141. doi: 10.1017/S0141347300009800

Sanders, M. R., Bor, W., & Morawska, A. (2007). Maintenance of treatment gains: A

comparison of enhanced, standard, and self-directed Triple P-Positive Parenting

Program. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 983-998. doi: 10.1007/s10802-

007-9148-x

Sanders, M. R., & Dadds, M. R. (1982). The effects of planned activities and child

management procedures in parent training: An analysis of setting generality. Behavior

Therapy, 13, 452-461. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(82)80007-5

Sanders, M. R., Dittman, C. K., Farruggia, S. P., & Keown, L. (2014). A comparison of

online versus workbook delivery of a self-help positive parenting program. Journal of

Primary Prevention. doi: 10.1007/s10935-014-0339-2

Sanders, M. R., & Glynn, T. (1981). Training parents in behavioral self-management: An

analysis of generalization and maintenance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14,

223-237. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1981.14-223

Sanders, M. R., Markie-Dadds, C., Tully, L. A., & Bor, W. (2000). The Triple P-Positive

Parenting Program: A comparison of enhanced, standard, and self-directed behavioral

family intervention for parents of children with early onset conduct problems. Journal

of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 624-640. doi: 10.1037/0022-

006x.68.4.624

Sanders, M. R., & McFarland, M. (2000). Treatment of depressed mothers with disruptive

children: A controlled evaluation of cognitive behavioral family intervention.

Behavior Therapy, 31, 89-112. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7894(00)80006-4

Sanders, M. R., Montgomery, D. T., & Brechman-Toussaint, M. L. (2000). The mass media

and the prevention of child behavior problems: The evaluation of a television series to

promote positive outcome for parents and their children. Journal of Child Psychology

& Psychiatry, 41, 939-948.

Sanders, M. R., Pidgeon, A. M., Gravestock, F., Connors, M. D., Brown, S., & Young, R. W.

(2004). Does parental attributional retraining and anger management enhance the

effects of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program with parents at risk of child

maltreatment? Behavior Therapy, 35, 513-535. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7894(04)80030-3

Sanders, M. R., & Plant, K. (1989). Programming for generalization to high and low risk

parenting situations in families with oppositional developmentally disabled

preschoolers. Behavior Modification, 13, 283-305. doi: 10.1177/01454455890133001

Sanders, M. R., Prior, J., & Ralph, A. (2009). An evaluation of a brief universal seminar

series on positive parenting: A feasibility study. Journal of Children’s Services, 4, 4-

20.

Sanders, M. R., Ralph, A., Sofronoff, K., Gardiner, P., Thompson, R., Dwyer, S., & Bidwell,

K. (2008). Every family: A population approach to reducing behavioral and emotional

problems in children making the transition to school. Journal of Primary Prevention,

29, 197-222. doi: 10.1007/s10935-008-0139-7

Sanders, M. R., Rebgetz, M., Morrison, M., Bor, W., Gordon, A., Dadds, M., & Shepherd, R.

(1989). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of recurrent nonspecific abdominal pain in

children: An analysis of generalization, maintenance, and side effects. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 294-300. doi: 10.1037/0022-006x.57.2.294

Sanders, M. R., Shepherd, R. W., Cleghorn, G., & Woolford, H. (1994). The treatment of

recurrent abdominal pain in children: A controlled comparison of cognitive-

behavioral family intervention and standard pediatric care. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 62, 306-314. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.62.2.306

Schmid, H., Anliker, S., Bodenmann, G., Cina, A., Fah, B., Kern-Scheffelt, W., . . .

Schonenberger, M. (2007). Empowerment in family and school (EIFAS): A

randomised controlled trial. Swiss Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Drug

Problems (SIPA), Switzerland.

Schmidt, F. (2012). Effectiveness of Triple P services at the Children's Centre Thunder Bay:

Final Report for Years 2007 to 2011. Thunder Bay, Ontario: Children's Centre

Thunder Bay.

Sofronoff, K., Jahnel, D., & Sanders, M. R. (2011). Stepping Stones Triple P seminars for

parents of a child with a disability: A randomized controlled trial. Research in

Developmental Disabilities, 32, 2253-2262. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.07.046

Spry, C. (2013). A randomised control trial examining the efficacy of Baby Triple P, a group

based couple intervention. Manuscript in preparation.

Stallman, H. M., & Ralph, A. (2007). Reducing risk factors for adolescent behavioural and

emotional problems: A pilot randomised controlled trial of a self-administered

parenting intervention. Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 6.

doi: 10.5172/jamh.6.2.125

Stallman, H. M., & Sanders, M. R. (2013). A randomized controlled trial of Family

Transitions Triple P: A group-administered parenting program to minimize the

adverse effects of parental divorce on children. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Tellegen, C. L., & Sanders, M. R. (2013b). A randomised controlled trial of Primary Care

Stepping Stones Triple P with parents of children with Autism Spectrum Disorders.

Manuscript submitted for publication.

Tsivos, Z. (2013). A pilot randomised controlled trial to evaluate the feasibility of the Baby

Positive Parenting Programme in women with Postnatal Depression. Manuscript

submitted for publication.

Turner, K. M. T., Richards, M., & Sanders, M. R. (2007). Randomised clinical trial of a

group parent education programme for Australian indigenous families. Journal of

Paediatrics and Child Health, 43, 429-437. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2007.01053.x

Turner, K. M. T., & Sanders, M. R. (2006). Help when it’s needed first: A controlled

evaluation of brief, preventive behavioral family intervention in a primary care

setting. Behavior Therapy, 37, 131-142. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2005.05.004

Turner, K. M. T., Sanders, M. R., & Wall, C. R. (1994). Behavioural parent training versus

dietary education in the treatment of children with persistent feeding difficulties.

Behaviour Change, 11, 242-258.

Valvoi, J. (2010). Evaluating efficacy of a parent only intervention for childhood anxiety and

parenting styles as potential mediators of change: a pilot study (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). The University of Queensland, Australia.

Venning, H. B., Blampied, N. M., & France, K. G. (2003). Effectiveness of a standard

parenting-skills program in reducing stealing and lying in two boys. Child & Family

Behavior Therapy, 25, 31-44.

Walsh, N. (2008). The impact of therapy process on outcomes for families of children with

disabilities and behaviour problems attending group parent training (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). Curtin University of Technology. Perth, Australia.

West, F., Sanders, M. R., Cleghorn, G. J., & Davies, P. S. W. (2010). Randomised clinical

trial of a family-based lifestyle intervention for childhood obesity involving parents as

the exclusive agents of change. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48, 1170-1179. doi:

10.1016/j.brat.2010.08.008

Whittingham, K. (2007). Implementation and Evaluation of the Parenting Program Stepping

Stones Triple P for children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). The University of Queensland, Australia.

Wiggins, T. L., Sofronoff, K., & Sanders, M. R. (2009). Pathways Triple P-Positive

Parenting Program: Effects on parent-child relationships and child behavior problems.

Family Process, 48, 517-530. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01299.x

Winkler, N. (2006). Veraenderungen im elterlichen Erziehungsverhalten, im

Kompetenzgefuehl von Eltern und im kindlichen Verhalten durch die Teilnahme an

einer Kurzberatung. Eien Evaluation der Ebene 3 der Triple P-Elternberatung

(Positive Parenting Program) [Changes in parenting behavior, parental feelings of

competence, and child behavior through participation in a brief counseling. An

evaluation of level 3 Triple P]. Westfaelische Wilhelms-Universitaet Muenster,

Muenster.

Winter, L., Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2011). The effect of behavioral family

intervention on knowldege of effective parenting strategies. Journal of Child and

Family Studies. doi: DOI 10.1007/s10826-011-9548-y

Zubrick, S. R., Ward, K. A., Silburn, S. R., Lawrence, D., Williams, A. A., Blair, E., . . .

Sanders, M. R. (2005). Prevention of child behavior problems through universal

implementation of a group behavioral family intervention. Prevention Science, 6, 287-

304. doi: 10.1007/s11121-005-0013-2

ars.els-cdn.com · web viewindividual sessions with parents ranging from 5-8 one hour sessions...

Documents