Triple P – Positive Parenting Program – Group (Level 4)
Triple P – Positive Parenting Program – Group (Level 4) (“Triple P-Group”) is a group-based parenting intervention. Triple P-Group is for parents who are interested in promoting their child's development or who are concerned about their child's behavior problems. Group sessions typically focus on topics such as positive parenting, helping children develop, managing misbehavior, and planning ahead. Practitioners then provide individual feedback on progress using positive parenting strategies and goal setting.
Triple P – Positive Parenting Program – Group (Level 4) is rated as a promising practice because at least one study achieved a rating of moderate or high on study design and execution and demonstrated a favorable effect on a target outcome.
Date Research Evidence Last Reviewed: Aug 2020
Sources
The program or service description, target population, and program or service delivery and implementation information was informed by the following sources: the California Evidence-based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare, the Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness review, the program or service developer’s website, the program or service manual, and the studies reviewed.
Program/Service Webpage Updated: Dec 2020
This information does not necessarily represent the views of the program or service developers. For more information on how this program or service was reviewed, visit the download the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0
Target Population
Triple P-Group serves families with children (up to 12 years). It targets parents who are interested in promoting their child's development or who are concerned about their child’s behavioral problems.
Dosage
To start, parents are typically offered 4 in-person group sessions, with up to 12 parents participating in each group. Each session is 2 hours. Practitioners then provide feedback to parents during 3 individual phone consulting sessions, each lasting 15-to-30-minutes, conducted over a 3 week period. A final and 5th group session is held to complete the intervention and close the program.
Location/Delivery Setting
Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings
Group sessions are delivered in-person. Practitioners also provide feedback individually to parents over the phone.
Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research
- Mental Health Center, Treatment Center, Therapist Office
- Maternal and Child Health Center
- Phone Counseling
- Community Center (e.g., religious or recreational facility)
Education, Certifications and Training
All Triple P-Group practitioners must complete a 3-day training program. This training covers topics such as applying parenting strategies, identifying risk and protective factors in families, facilitating active skills training with groups, and making referrals. Practitioners must also participate in a 1-day pre-accreditation workshop where they practice specific competencies and receive individualized feedback. Then, 6 to 8 weeks later, practitioners complete a half-day accreditation workshop in which they pass a written exam and demonstrate proficiency in key competency areas. Successful practitioners come from all sectors. Minimum training requirements include a desire to learn and experience working with children and families.
Program or Service Documentation
Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review
Turner, K. M. T., Markie-Dadds, C., & Sanders, M. R. (2010). Facilitator’s manual for Group Triple P (3rd ed.). Triple P International Pty Ltd.
Available languages
Triple P-Group parent resources are available in English and 13 other languages (including Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Japanese and Swedish). Additional Triple P resources that can supplement the program are available in 21 languages other than English. Triple P-Group practitioner resources are available in English and 8 other languages (including Dutch, French, German, Japanese, Spanish, and Swedish).
Other supporting materials
For More Information
Website: https://www.triplep.net/glo-en/home/
Phone: 803-451-2278
Email: contact.us@triplep.net
Note: The details on Dosage; Location; Education, Certifications, and Training; Other Supporting Materials; and For More Information sections above are provided to website users for informational purposes only. This information is not exhaustive and may be subject to change.
| Results of Search and Review | Number of Studies Identified and Reviewed for Triple P – Positive Parenting Program – Group (Level 4) |
|---|---|
| Identified in Search | 37 |
| Eligible for Review | 18 |
| Rated High | 2 |
| Rated Moderate | 5 |
| Rated Low | 11 |
| Reviewed Only for Risk of Harm | 0 |
| Outcome | Effect Size
 and Implied Percentile Effect
|
N of Studies (Findings) | N of Participants | Summary of Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning |
0.19
7 |
6 (16) | 615 |
Favorable:
4 No Effect: 11 Unfavorable: 1 |
| Child well-being: Social functioning |
0.10
4 |
1 (2) | 288 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices |
0.36
14 |
6 (14) | 591 |
Favorable:
11 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health |
0.59
22 |
4 (12) | 191 |
Favorable:
4 No Effect: 8 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Family functioning |
0.24
9 |
2 (3) | 120 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0 |
Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group.
| Outcome | Effect Size
and Implied Percentile Effect
|
N of Studies (Findings) | N of Participants | Summary of Findings |
Months after treatment when outcome measured
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning |
0.19
7 |
6 (16) | 615 |
Favorable:
4 No Effect: 11 Unfavorable: 1 |
- |
| Study 10751 - Positive Parenting Program (PPP) vs. Matched comparison (Eisner, 2012) | |||||
| Social Behavior Questionnaire: Aggressive Behavior (Parent Report) |
0.02
0 |
- | 288 | - | 5 |
| Social Behavior Questionnaire: Internalizing Problems (Teacher Report) |
-0.32
*
-12 |
- | 288 | - | 5 |
| Social Behavior Questionnaire: Non-Aggressive Conduct Problems (Child Report) |
0.10
4 |
- | 288 | - | 5 |
| Social Behavior Questionnaire: Aggressive Behavior (Child Report) |
0.11
4 |
- | 288 | - | 5 |
| Study 10754 - Group Triple P (4+4) vs. Waitlist Control (Gallart, 2005) | |||||
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Intensity Scale |
0.57
21 |
- | 32 | - | 0 |
| Study 10761 - Positive Parenting Program (Triple-P) vs. BAU Control (Khademi, 2019) | |||||
| Conners' Parent Rating Scale: ADHD Total Score |
0.46
*
17 |
- | 94 | - | 0 |
| Conners' Parent Rating Scale: Hyperactivity |
0.59
*
22 |
- | 94 | - | 0 |
| Study 10763 - Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) vs. Waitlist Control (WL) (Leung, 2003) | |||||
| Parent Daily Report |
0.45
17 |
- | 69 | - | 0 |
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Intensity Scale |
0.75
*
27 |
- | 69 | - | 0 |
| Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Conduct Problems |
0.67
*
24 |
- | 69 | - | 0 |
| Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Emotional Symptoms |
0.36
13 |
- | 69 | - | 0 |
| Study 10764 - Group Triple P vs. Waitlist control (Leung, 2013) | |||||
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Intensity Scale |
0.28
11 |
- | 81 | - | 0 |
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Problem Scale |
0.21
8 |
- | 81 | - | 0 |
| Study 10769 - Triple P Positive Parenting Program vs. Wait-list Control (Matsumoto, 2010) | |||||
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Problem Scale |
-0.14
-5 |
- | 51 | - | 0 |
| Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Peer Relationship Problems |
0.02
0 |
- | 51 | - | 0 |
| Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Prosocial Behaviour |
0.13
5 |
- | 51 | - | 0 |
| Child well-being: Social functioning |
0.10
4 |
1 (2) | 288 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 10751 - Positive Parenting Program (PPP) vs. Matched comparison (Eisner, 2012) | |||||
| Social Behavior Questionnaire: Prosocial Behavior (Teacher Report) |
0.08
3 |
- | 288 | - | 5 |
| Social Behavior Questionnaire: Prosocial Behavior (Child Report) |
0.13
4 |
- | 288 | - | 5 |
| Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices |
0.36
14 |
6 (14) | 591 |
Favorable:
11 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 10738 - Positive Parenting Program (PPP) vs. Treatment as usual (TAU) (Aghebati, 2014 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting) | |||||
| Parenting Scale: Total Score |
0.96
*
33 |
- | 27 | - | 0 |
| Parental Bonding Instrument: Parental Overprotection |
1.94
*
47 |
- | 27 | - | 0 |
| Parental Bonding Instrument: Parental Care |
1.17
*
37 |
- | 27 | - | 0 |
| Study 10751 - Positive Parenting Program (PPP) vs. Matched comparison (Eisner, 2012) | |||||
| Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Parental Involvement |
-0.03
-1 |
- | 288 | - | 5 |
| Study 10754 - Group Triple P (4+4) vs. Waitlist Control (Gallart, 2005) | |||||
| Parenting Scale: Total Score |
0.69
25 |
- | 32 | - | 0 |
| Study 10761 - Positive Parenting Program (Triple-P) vs. BAU Control (Khademi, 2019) | |||||
| Parenting Sense of Competence Scale: Total Score |
0.68
*
25 |
- | 94 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Scale: Total Score |
1.15
*
37 |
- | 94 | - | 0 |
| Study 10763 - Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) vs. Waitlist Control (WL) (Leung, 2003) | |||||
| Parenting Sense of Competence Scale: Total Scale |
0.76
*
27 |
- | 69 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Sense of Competence Scale: Parental Efficacy |
0.89
*
31 |
- | 69 | - | 0 |
| Parent Problem Checklist |
0.72
*
26 |
- | 69 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Scale: Laxness |
0.79
*
28 |
- | 69 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Scale: Overreactivity |
0.69
*
25 |
- | 69 | - | 0 |
| Study 10764 - Group Triple P vs. Waitlist control (Leung, 2013) | |||||
| Parenting Scale: Laxness |
0.42
16 |
- | 81 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Scale: Overreactivity |
0.49
*
18 |
- | 81 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health |
0.59
22 |
4 (12) | 191 |
Favorable:
4 No Effect: 8 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 10738 - Positive Parenting Program (PPP) vs. Treatment as usual (TAU) (Aghebati, 2014 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting) | |||||
| Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42: Depression |
2.66
*
49 |
- | 27 | - | 0 |
| Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42: Anxiety |
1.93
*
47 |
- | 27 | - | 0 |
| Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42: Stress |
2.62
*
49 |
- | 27 | - | 0 |
| Study 10754 - Group Triple P (4+4) vs. Waitlist Control (Gallart, 2005) | |||||
| Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42: Depression |
0.67
24 |
- | 32 | - | 0 |
| Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42: Anxiety |
0.65
24 |
- | 32 | - | 0 |
| Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42: Stress |
0.50
19 |
- | 32 | - | 0 |
| Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42: Total Score |
0.68
25 |
- | 32 | - | 0 |
| Study 10764 - Group Triple P vs. Waitlist control (Leung, 2013) | |||||
| Parental Stress Scale |
0.43
16 |
- | 81 | - | 0 |
| Parent Problem Checklist: Intensity |
0.33
12 |
- | 78 | - | 0 |
| Parent Problem Checklist: Concern |
0.57
*
21 |
- | 78 | - | 0 |
| Study 10769 - Triple P Positive Parenting Program vs. Wait-list Control (Matsumoto, 2010) | |||||
| Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42: Anxiety |
-0.04
-1 |
- | 51 | - | 0 |
| Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42: Stress |
0.48
18 |
- | 51 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Family functioning |
0.24
9 |
2 (3) | 120 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 10763 - Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) vs. Waitlist Control (WL) (Leung, 2003) | |||||
| Relationship Quality Index |
0.24
9 |
- | 69 | - | 0 |
| Study 10769 - Triple P Positive Parenting Program vs. Wait-list Control (Matsumoto, 2010) | |||||
| Parent Problem Checklist: Concern |
0.41
15 |
- | 51 | - | 0 |
| Relationship Quality Index |
0.05
1 |
- | 51 | - | 0 |
*p <.05
Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group. Effect sizes and implied percentile effects were calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse as described in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Section 5.10.4 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications.
Only publications with eligible contrasts that met design and execution standards are included in the individual study findings table.
Full citations for the studies shown in the table are available in the "Studies Reviewed" section.
The participant characteristics display is an initial version. We encourage those interested in providing feedback to send suggestions to preventionservices@abtglobal.com.
The table below displays locations, the year, and participant demographics for studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Participant characteristics for studies with more than one intervention versus comparison group pair that received moderate or high ratings are shown separately in the table. Please note, the information presented here uses terminology directly from the study documents, when available. Studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution that did not include relevant participant demographic information would not be represented in this table.
For more information on how Clearinghouse reviewers record the information in the table, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
| Characteristics of the Participants in the Studies with Moderate or High Ratings | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Study Location
|
Study Year
|
Age or Grade-level
|
Race, Ethnicity, Nationality
|
Gender
|
Populations of Interest*
|
Household Socioeconomic Status
|
| Study 10754 - Group Triple P (4+4) vs. Waitlist Control | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Australia | -- | Average age: 5 years; Age range: 3-8 years | -- | 75% Boys | -- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Australia | -- | -- | -- |
94% Mothers 6% Fathers |
-- | -- |
| Study 10769 - Triple P Positive Parenting Program vs. Wait-list Control | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Tokyo, Japan | -- | Average age: 6 years; Age range: 2-10 years | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Tokyo, Japan | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 100% Fathers full-time employed |
| Study 10763 - Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) vs. Waitlist Control (WL) | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Hong Kong, China | -- | Average age: 4 years; Age range: 3-7 years | -- |
64% Male 36% Female |
-- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Hong Kong, China | -- | Average age: 36 years | -- |
96% Mothers 4% Fathers |
-- | -- |
| Study 10761 - Positive Parenting Program (Triple-P) vs. BAU Control | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Tehran, Iran | 2010 | Average age: 4 years; Age range: 3-5 years | -- |
86% Male 14% Female |
-- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Tehran, Iran | 2010 | -- | -- | 100% Mothers | -- | 19% Employed |
| Study 10764 - Group Triple P vs. Waitlist control | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Hong Kong, China | 2010 | Average age: 50 months | -- |
70% Male 30% Female |
-- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Hong Kong, China | 2010 | -- | -- |
89% Mothers 11% Fathers |
-- |
78% Father employed 40% Mother employed |
| Study 10751 - Positive Parenting Program (PPP) vs. Matched comparison | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Zurich, Switzerland | 2004 | Average age: 7 years | -- | 48% Female | -- | -- |
| Study 10738 - Positive Parenting Program (PPP) vs. Treatment as usual (TAU) | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Tehran, Iran | 2010 | Average age: 8 years; Age range: 6-10 years | -- |
59% Male 41% Female |
-- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Tehran, Iran | 2010 | Average age: 34 years | -- | 100% Female | -- | -- |
“--” indicates information not reported in the study.
* The information about disabilities is based on initial coding. For more information on how the Clearinghouse recorded disability information for the initial release, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings. The Clearinghouse is currently seeking consultation from experts, including those with lived experience, and input from the public to enhance and improve the display.
Note: Citations for the documents associated with each 5-digit study number shown in the table can be found in the “Studies Reviewed” section below. Study settings and participant demographics are recorded for all studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Studies that did not report any information about setting or participant demographics are not displayed. For more information on how participant characteristics are recorded, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
Studies Rated High
Study 10754Gallart, S. C., & Matthey, S. (2005). The effectiveness of Group Triple P and the impact of the four telephone contacts. Behaviour Change, 22(2), 71-80. doi:10.1375/bech.2005.22.2.71
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 10764
Leung, C., Fan, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2013). The effectiveness of a Group Triple P with Chinese parents who have a child with developmental disabilities: A randomized controlled trial. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(3), 976-984. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2012.11.023
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Studies Rated Moderate
Study 10738Aghebati, A., Gharraee, B., Hakim Shoshtari, M., & Gohari, M. R. (2014). Triple P-Positive Parenting Program for mothers of ADHD children. Iranian Journal Of Psychiatry And Behavioral Sciences, 8(1), 59-65.
Some contrasts that received a moderate or high design and execution rating in this study were not from research conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2) [see Individual Study Findings section above for additional information on contrasts that did or did not meet this criterion]Study 10769
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(1), 87-91. doi:10.1037/a0018181
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 10763
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(4), 531-544. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2003.00531.x
This study was not conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 10761
Khademi, M., Ayatmehr, F., Mehr, N. K., Razjooyan, K., Ashtiani, R. D., & Arabgol, F. (2019). Evaluation of the effects of positive parenting program on symptoms of preschool children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Journal of Practice in Clinical Psychology, 7(1), 11-20. doi:10.32598/jpcp.7.1.11
This study was not conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 10751
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(3), 252-266. doi:10.1007/s11121-011-0266-x
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Studies Rated Low
Study 10786Zubrick, 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(4), 287-304. DOI: 10.1007/s11121-005-0013-2
This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.Study 10767
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(4), 161-169. doi:10.1111/1475-3588.00066
This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.Study 10755
Guo, M., Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2016). A randomized controlled trial of Group Triple P with Chinese parents in Mainland China. Behavior Modification, 40(6), 825-851. doi:10.1177/0145445516644221
This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.Study 10768
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(4), 205-218. doi:10.1375/bech.24.4.205
This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.Study 10740
Au, A., Lau, K. M., Wong, A. H. C., Lam, C., Leung, C., Lau, J., & Lee, Y. K. (2014). The efficacy of a Group Triple P (Positive Parenting Program) for Chinese parents with a child diagnosed with ADHD in Hong Kong: A pilot randomised controlled study. Australian Psychologist, 49(3), 151-162. doi:10.1111/ap.12053
This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.Study 10742
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(4), 411-427. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2008.01.001
Zemp, M., Milek, A., Cummings, E. M., Cina, A., & Bodenmann, G. (2016). How couple- and parenting-focused programs affect child behavioral problems: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(3), 798-810. doi:10.1007/s10826-015-0260-1
Zemp, M., Milek, A., Davies, P. T., & Bodenmann, G. (2016). Improved child problem behavior enhances the parents’ relationship quality: A randomized trial. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(8), 896-906. doi:10.1037/fam0000212
Zemp, M., Milek, A., Cummings, E. M., & Bodenmann, G. (2017). Longitudinal interrelations between dyadic coping and coparenting conflict in couples. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(8), 2276-2290. doi:10.1007/s10826-017-0742-4
This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.Study 10780
Tully, L. A., & Hunt, C. (2017). A randomized controlled trial of a brief versus standard group parenting program for toddler aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 43(3), 291-303. doi:10.1002/ab.21689
This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.Study 10757
Kuschel, A., Heinrichs, N., & Hahlweg, K. (2009). Is a preventive parenting program effective in reducing a child's externalizing behavior? European Journal of Developmental Science, 3(3), 299-303.
Hahlweg, K., Heinrichs, N., Kuschel, A., Bertram, H., & Naumann, S. (2010). Long-term outcome of a randomized controlled universal prevention trial through a positive parenting program: Is it worth the effort? Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4. doi:10.1186/1753-2000-4-14
Heinrichs, N., Kliem, S., & Hahlweg, K. (2014). Four-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of Triple P Group for parent and child outcomes. Prevention Science, 15(2), 233-245. doi:10.1007/s11121-012-0358-2
Heinrichs, N., Kliem, S., & Hahlweg, K. (2017). 'Four-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of Triple P group for parent and child outcomes': Addendum. Prevention Science, 18(4), 491-503. doi:10.1007/s11121-017-0782-4
Heinrichs, N., Bertram, H., Kuschel, A., & Hahlweg, K. (2005). Parent recruitment and retention in a universal prevention program for child behavior and emotional problems: Barriers to research and program participation. Prevention Science, 6(4). doi: 10.1007/s11121-005-0006-1
This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.Study 10762
Kousha, M., & Abbasi Kakrodi, M. (2019). Can parents improve the quality of life of their children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? Iranian Journal Of Psychiatry, 14(2), 154-159.
This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.Study 10773
Özyurt, G., Gencer, Ö., Öztürk, Y., & Özbek, A. (2016). Is Triple P Positive Parenting Program effective on anxious children and their parents? 4th month follow up results. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(5), 1646-1655. doi:10.1007/s10826-015-0343-z
This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.Study 10753
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(6), 804-813. doi:10.1007/s10826-011-9448-1
Fujiwara, T., Kato, N., & Sanders, M. (2015). Erratum to: 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 & Family Studies, 24(5), 1526-1526. doi:10.1007/s10826-015-0163-1
This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.Studies Not Eligible for Review
Study 10739
Ashori, M., Norouzi, G., & Jalil-Abkenar, S. S. (2019). The effect of positive parenting program on mental health in mothers of children with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 23(3), 385-396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629518824899
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10741
Baker, S., & Sanders, M. R. (2017). Predictors of program use and child and parent outcomes of a brief online parenting intervention. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 48(5), 807-817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-016-0706-8
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10744
Dahinten, V. S., Arim, R. G., Guèvremont, A., & Kohen, D. E. (2014). The case for using administrative data to examine a population-based parenting intervention. International Journal of Child Health and Human Development, 7(2), 115-124.
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10745
David, O. A. (2014). The Rational Positive Parenting program for child externalizing behavior: Mechanisms of change analysis. Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies, 14(1), 21-38.
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10748
Doyle, O., Hegarty, M., & Owens, C. (2018). Population-based system of parenting support to reduce the prevalence of child social, emotional, and behavioural problems: Difference-in-differences study. Prevention Science, 19(6), 772-781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0907-4
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10749
Duncombe, M. E., Havighurst, S. S., Kehoe, C. E., Holland, K. A., Frankling, E. J., & Stargatt, R. (2016). Comparing an emotion- and a behavior-focused parenting program as part of a multsystemic intervention for child conduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 45(3), 320-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2014.963855
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10752
Frank, T. J., Keown, L. J., & Sanders, M. R. (2015). Enhancing father engagement and interparental teamwork in an evidence-based parenting intervention: A randomized-controlled trial of outcomes and processes. Behavior Therapy, 46(6), 749-763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2015.05.008
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10758
Jalali, M., Pourahmadi, E., Tahmassian, K., & Shaeiri, M. (2008). The effectiveness of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program on psychological well being of mothers of children with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). Journal of Family Research, 4(4), 353-368.
This study is ineligible for review because it is not available in English (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.3).
Study 10759
Jones, S., Calam, R., Sanders, M., Diggle, P. J., Dempsey, R., & Sadhnani, V. (2014). A pilot web based positive parenting intervention to help bipolar parents to improve perceived parenting skills and child outcomes. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 42(3), 283-296. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135246581300009X
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10760
Keown, L. J., Sanders, M. R., Franke, N., & Shepherd, M. (2018). Te whānau pou toru: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a culturally adapted low-intensity variant of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program for indigenous Māori families in New Zealand. Prevention Science, 19(7), 954-965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0886-5
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10765
Lundin, M., & Karlsson, M. (2014). Estimation of causal effects in observational studies with interference between units. Statistical Methods and Applications, 23(3), 417-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10260-014-0257-8
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 10770
McTaggart, P., & Sanders, M. R. (2003). The Transition to School Project: Results from the classroom. Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 2(3), 144-155. https://doi.org/10.5172/jamh.2.3.144
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10771
Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. (2009). An evaluation of a behavioural parenting intervention for parents of gifted children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47(6), 463-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2009.02.008
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10772
Morawska, A., Mitchell, A. E., Burgess, S., & Fraser, J. (2016). Effects of Triple P parenting intervention on child health outcomes for childhood asthma and eczema: Randomised controlled trial. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 83, 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2016.06.001
Morawska, A., Mitchell, A., Burgess, S., & Fraser, J. (2017). Randomized controlled trial of Triple P for parents of children with asthma or eczema: Effects on parenting and child behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85(4), 283-296. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000177
Morawska, A., Mitchell, A. E., Burgess, S., & Fraser, J. (2017). 'Effects of Triple P parenting intervention on child health outcomes for childhood asthma and eczema: Randomised controlled trial': Corrigendum. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 92, 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2016.12.017
Morawska, A., Mitchell, A. E., Burgess, S., & Fraser, J. (2017). Fathers' perceptions of change following parenting intervention: Randomized controlled trial of Triple P for parents of children with asthma or eczema. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 42(7), 792-803. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsw106
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10774
Pickering, J. A., & Sanders, M. R. (2016). The protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a brief intervention for parents of children experiencing sibling conflict. Clinical Psychologist, 20(2), 86-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/cp.12051
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10777
Turner, K. M., 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(6), 429-437. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1754.2002.00077.x-i1
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10778
Schilling, S., Lanier, P., Rose, R. A., Shanahan, M., & Zolotor, A. J. (2019). A quasi-experimental effectiveness study of Triple P on child maltreatment. Journal of Family Violence, 35(4), 373-383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00043-5
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10779
Tellegen, C. L., & Johnston, E. (2017). A service-based evaluation of the effectiveness of an all-day group parenting program. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(2), 664-673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0630-3
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 10785
Zamani, R., Gahari, S., & Pourrahhimi, M. (2017). Effect of teaching positive parenting program to mothers on reducing behavioral problems in children with oppositional defiant disorder: Paper presented at the International Educational Technology Conference and International Teacher Education Conference. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 208-213.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible publication source (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.2).