Parent-Child Interaction Therapy
In Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT), parents are coached by a trained therapist in behavior-management and relationship skills. PCIT is a program for two to seven-year old children and their parents or caregivers that aims to decrease externalizing child behavior problems, increase positive parenting behaviors, and improve the quality of the parent-child relationship. During weekly sessions, therapists coach caregivers in skills such as child-centered play, communication, increasing child compliance, and problem-solving. Therapists use “bug-in-the-ear” technology to provide live coaching to parents or caregivers from behind a one-way mirror (there are some modifications in which live same-room coaching is also used). Parents or caregivers progress through treatment as they master specific competencies, thus there is no fixed length of treatment. Most families are able to achieve mastery of the program content in 12 to 20 one-hour sessions. Master’s level therapists who have received specialized training provide PCIT services to children and caregivers.
Parent-Child Interaction Therapy is rated as a well-supported practice because at least two studies with non-overlapping samples carried out in usual care or practice settings achieved a rating of moderate or high on design and execution and demonstrated favorable effects in a target outcome domain. At least one of the studies demonstrated a sustained favorable effect of at least 12 months beyond the end of treatment on at least one target outcome.
Date Research Evidence Last Reviewed: Feb 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 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 Review Process page or download the Handbook.
Target Population
PCIT is typically appropriate for families with children who are between two and seven years old and experience emotional and behavioral problems that are frequent and intense.
Dosage
PCIT is typically delivered over 12-20 weekly hour-long sessions, but the exact treatment length varies based on the needs of the child and family. Treatment is considered complete when a positive parent-child relationship is established, the parent can effectively manage the child’s behavior, and the child’s behavior is within normal limits on a behavior rating scale.
Location/Delivery Setting
Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings
PCIT is usually delivered in playroom settings where therapists can observe behaviors through a one-way mirror. By using the one-way mirror therapists can provide verbal direction and support to the parent using a wireless earphone. Video technology can also be used to deliver the program in other environments such as the home.
Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research
- Home
- Mental Health Center, Treatment Center, Therapist Office
- Non-Correctional Residential Center
- School
- University Clinical Lab
- University research clinic
Education, Certifications and Training
To become a certified PCIT therapist, individuals must be a licensed mental health provider with a master’s degree (or higher) in a mental health field or a third year psychology doctoral student who works under the supervision of a licensed mental health service provider. Individuals must also complete 40-hours of training with PCIT trainers and approved materials. Although online-based trainings are offered, at least 30 of the 40 required hours must be in face-to-face training.
Additional information about these trainings can be found on the PCIT International website.
Program or Service Documentation
Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review
Eyberg, S., & Funderburk, B. (2011) Parent-Child Interaction Therapy protocol: 2011. PCIT International, Inc.
Available languages
Materials are available in languages other than English, including Spanish.
Other supporting materials
For More Information
Website: http://www.pcit.org/
Email: pcit.international@gmail.com
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 Parent-Child Interaction Therapy |
|---|---|
| Identified in Search | 36 |
| Eligible for Review | 21 |
| Rated High | 5 |
| Rated Moderate | 6 |
| Rated Low | 4 |
| Reviewed Only for Risk of Harm | 6 |
| Outcome | Effect Size
 and Implied Percentile Effect
|
N of Studies (Findings) | N of Participants | Summary of Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning |
0.92
32 |
11 (46) | 524 |
Favorable:
18 No Effect: 28 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Child well-being: Social functioning |
0.52
19 |
1 (2) | 19 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices |
1.46
42 |
8 (25) | 422 |
Favorable:
20 No Effect: 5 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health |
0.57
21 |
3 (6) | 252 |
Favorable:
4 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Family functioning |
0.29
11 |
5 (10) | 177 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 10 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. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.
The findings reported for this program or service are derived from eligible, prioritized studies rated as moderate or high on study design and execution and do not represent the findings from all eligible studies of the program or service. Learn more on the FAQ page.
| 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 |
0.92
32 |
11 (46) | 524 |
Favorable:
18 No Effect: 28 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 10054 - PCIT vs. Treatment As Usual Comparison Group (Abrahamse, 2016) | |||||
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Problem Scale (Mother Report) |
0.68
25 |
- | 38 | - | 0 |
| Study 10029 - Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) vs. Waitlist Control (Bagner, 2007 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting) | |||||
| Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System: Child Compliance |
1.30
*
40 |
- | 21 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing Problems |
1.04
*
35 |
- | 22 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Total Problem Behavior |
0.94
32 |
- | 22 | - | 0 |
| Study 10031 - PCIT vs. Waitlist Comparison Group (Bagner, 2010) | |||||
| Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing Problems |
1.44
*
42 |
- | 25 | - | 0 |
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Intensity Scale |
2.72
*
49 |
- | 25 | - | 0 |
| Study 10119 - Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) vs. Treatment As Usual Comparison Group (Bjørseth, 2016) | |||||
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Intensity Scale (Mother Report) |
0.40
15 |
- | 55 | - | 1 |
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Intensity Scale (Mother Report) |
0.38
14 |
- | 59 | - | 13 |
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Intensity Scale (Father Report) |
0.72
*
26 |
- | 49 | - | 1 |
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Intensity Scale (Father Report) |
0.47
17 |
- | 56 | - | 13 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing Problems (Mother Report) |
-0.40
-15 |
- | 50 | - | 1 |
| Study 10126 - Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) vs. Waitlist Comparison Group (Leung, 2015) | |||||
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Intensity Scale |
1.62
*
44 |
- | 111 | - | 0 |
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Problems Scale |
1.01
*
34 |
- | 111 | - | 0 |
| Study 10127 - PCIT vs. Waitlist Control Group (Leung, 2017) | |||||
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Intensity Scale |
1.70
*
45 |
- | 64 | - | 0 |
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Problem Scale |
1.19
*
38 |
- | 64 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Attention Problems |
0.68
*
25 |
- | 64 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing Problems |
0.87
*
30 |
- | 64 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing Problems |
0.95
*
32 |
- | 64 | - | 0 |
| Study 10034 - PCIT vs. Waitlist Control Group (Matos, 2009 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting) | |||||
| Behavioral Assessment System for Children: Hyperactivity |
1.77
*
46 |
- | 32 | - | 0 |
| Behavioral Assessment System for Children: Aggression |
1.43
*
42 |
- | 32 | - | 0 |
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Problem Scale |
1.91
*
47 |
- | 32 | - | 0 |
| Study 10035 - Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) vs. Treatment As Usual Comparison Group (McCabe, 2009) | |||||
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Intensity Scale |
0.36
14 |
- | 34 | - | 0 |
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Problem Scale |
0.18
7 |
- | 34 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing Problems |
0.58
21 |
- | 34 | - | 0 |
| Early Childhood Inventory-4: ADHD Symptoms |
0.39
15 |
- | 34 | - | 0 |
| Early Childhood Inventory-4: Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms |
-0.13
-5 |
- | 34 | - | 0 |
| Early Childhood Inventory-4: Conduct Disorder Symptoms |
0.07
2 |
- | 34 | - | 0 |
| Study 10035 - Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) vs. Treatment As Usual Comparison Group (McCabe, 2012) | |||||
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Problem Scale |
0.20
8 |
- | 28 | - | 16 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing Problems |
-0.06
-2 |
- | 28 | - | 16 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing Problems |
0.15
5 |
- | 28 | - | 16 |
| Early Childhood Inventory-4: Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms |
0.07
2 |
- | 28 | - | 16 |
| Early Childhood Inventory-4: Conduct Disorder Symptoms |
-0.16
-6 |
- | 28 | - | 16 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Total Problem Behavior |
0.00
0 |
- | 28 | - | 16 |
| Study 10131 - Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) vs. Waitlist Comparison Group (Schuhmann, 1998 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting) | |||||
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Intensity Scale (Mother Report) |
1.46
*
42 |
- | 42 | - | 0 |
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Problem Scale (Mother Report) |
1.35
*
41 |
- | 42 | - | 0 |
| Study 10030 - PCIT vs. Waitlist Control Group (Solomon, 2008 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting) | |||||
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Problem Scale |
0.99
33 |
- | 19 | - | 0 |
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Intensity Scale |
0.48
18 |
- | 19 | - | 0 |
| Behavior Assessment System for Children: Aggression |
0.20
8 |
- | 19 | - | 0 |
| Behavior Assessment System for Children: Hyperactivity |
0.52
19 |
- | 19 | - | 0 |
| Behavior Assessment System for Children: Attention Problems |
0.66
24 |
- | 19 | - | 0 |
| Behavior Assessment System for Children: Conduct Problems |
0.67
24 |
- | 19 | - | 0 |
| Behavior Assessment System for Children: Adaptability |
0.89
31 |
- | 19 | - | 0 |
| Behavior Assessment System for Children: Depression |
-0.07
-2 |
- | 19 | - | 0 |
| Behavior Assessment System for Children: Atypicality |
0.62
23 |
- | 19 | - | 0 |
| Study 10056 - PCIT vs. Waitlist With Minimal Intervention (Thomas, 2011) | |||||
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing |
0.39
14 |
- | 78 | - | 0 |
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Problem Scale |
0.64
*
23 |
- | 73 | - | 0 |
| Child well-being: Social functioning |
0.52
19 |
1 (2) | 19 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 10030 - PCIT vs. Waitlist Control Group (Solomon, 2008 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting) | |||||
| Behavior Assessment System for Children: Social Skills |
0.73
26 |
- | 19 | - | 0 |
| Behavior Assessment System for Children: Leadership |
0.31
12 |
- | 19 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices |
1.46
42 |
8 (25) | 422 |
Favorable:
20 No Effect: 5 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 10029 - Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) vs. Waitlist Control (Bagner, 2007 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting) | |||||
| Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System: "Don't" Skills |
1.20
*
38 |
- | 21 | - | 0 |
| Study 10031 - PCIT vs. Waitlist Comparison Group (Bagner, 2010) | |||||
| Parenting Scale: Laxness |
0.98
*
33 |
- | 25 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Scale: Verbosity |
0.74
26 |
- | 25 | - | 0 |
| Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System: "Don't" Skills |
1.61
*
44 |
- | 25 | - | 0 |
| Study 10119 - Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) vs. Treatment As Usual Comparison Group (Bjørseth, 2016) | |||||
| Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System: "Don't" Skills |
1.19
*
38 |
- | 49 | - | 1 |
| Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System: "Don't" Skills |
0.94
*
32 |
- | 50 | - | 13 |
| Study 10126 - Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) vs. Waitlist Comparison Group (Leung, 2015) | |||||
| Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System: Positive Practices |
3.99
*
49 |
- | 111 | - | 0 |
| Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System: Command/Question/Negative Talk |
1.99
*
47 |
- | 111 | - | 0 |
| Corporal punishment (frequency) |
1.23
*
38 |
- | 111 | - | 0 |
| Study 10127 - PCIT vs. Waitlist Control Group (Leung, 2017) | |||||
| Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System: Positive Practices |
2.24
*
48 |
- | 64 | - | 0 |
| Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System: Command/Question/Negative Talk |
2.03
*
47 |
- | 64 | - | 0 |
| Corporal punishment (frequency) |
2.78
*
49 |
- | 64 | - | 0 |
| Study 10035 - Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) vs. Treatment As Usual Comparison Group (McCabe, 2009) | |||||
| Parenting Practices Scale |
0.04
1 |
- | 34 | - | 0 |
| Dyadic Parent Child Interaction Coding System: Child-led Play "Do" Skills |
1.56
*
44 |
- | 34 | - | 0 |
| Dyadic Parent Child Interaction Coding System: Child-led Play "Don't" Skills |
0.96
*
33 |
- | 34 | - | 0 |
| Dyadic Parent Child Interaction Coding System: Parent-led Play "Do" Skills |
0.59
22 |
- | 34 | - | 0 |
| Dyadic Parent Child Interaction Coding System: Parent-led Play "Don't" Skills |
0.78
*
28 |
- | 34 | - | 0 |
| Dyadic Parent Child Interaction Coding System: Clean-Up "Do" Skills |
1.54
*
43 |
- | 34 | - | 0 |
| Dyadic Parent Child Interaction Coding System: Clean-Up "Don't" Skills |
1.55
*
43 |
- | 34 | - | 0 |
| Dyadic Parent Child Interaction Coding System: Clean-Up Compliance |
0.40
15 |
- | 34 | - | 0 |
| Study 10131 - Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) vs. Waitlist Comparison Group (Schuhmann, 1998 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting) | |||||
| Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System: Maternal Praise |
1.85
*
46 |
- | 41 | - | 0 |
| Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System: Maternal Behavioral Descriptions |
2.31
*
48 |
- | 41 | - | 0 |
| Study 10056 - PCIT vs. Waitlist With Minimal Intervention (Thomas, 2011) | |||||
| Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System: Praise Verbalizations |
1.22
*
38 |
- | 76 | - | 0 |
| Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System: Command Verbalizations |
0.64
*
23 |
- | 76 | - | 0 |
| Emotional Availability Scale: Parent Sensitivity |
-0.17
-6 |
- | 76 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health |
0.57
21 |
3 (6) | 252 |
Favorable:
4 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 10126 - Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) vs. Waitlist Comparison Group (Leung, 2015) | |||||
| Parenting Stress Index |
0.84
*
29 |
- | 111 | - | 0 |
| Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale |
0.58
*
21 |
- | 111 | - | 0 |
| Study 10127 - PCIT vs. Waitlist Control Group (Leung, 2017) | |||||
| Parenting Stress Index |
1.19
*
38 |
- | 64 | - | 0 |
| Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale |
0.56
*
21 |
- | 64 | - | 0 |
| Study 10056 - PCIT vs. Waitlist With Minimal Intervention (Thomas, 2011) | |||||
| Parenting Stress Inventory: Parent Stress |
0.36
13 |
- | 77 | - | 0 |
| Child Abuse Potential Inventory |
-0.07
-2 |
- | 76 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Family functioning |
0.29
11 |
5 (10) | 177 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 10 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 10029 - Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) vs. Waitlist Control (Bagner, 2007 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting) | |||||
| Parenting Stress Index: Parental Distress |
0.02
0 |
- | 22 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Stress Index: Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction |
0.50
19 |
- | 22 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Stress Index: Difficult Child |
0.57
21 |
- | 22 | - | 0 |
| Study 10031 - PCIT vs. Waitlist Comparison Group (Bagner, 2010) | |||||
| Parenting Stress Index-Short Form: Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction |
0.36
14 |
- | 25 | - | 0 |
| Study 10035 - Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) vs. Treatment As Usual Comparison Group (McCabe, 2009) | |||||
| Parenting Stress Index |
0.47
18 |
- | 34 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Stress Index: Parent Distress |
0.27
10 |
- | 34 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Stress Index: Parent Child Dysfunctional Interaction Scale |
0.61
22 |
- | 34 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Stress Index: Difficult Child Scale |
0.17
6 |
- | 34 | - | 0 |
| Study 10030 - PCIT vs. Waitlist Control Group (Solomon, 2008 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting) | |||||
| Parenting Stress Index |
Null
not calculated |
- | 19 | - | 0 |
| Study 10056 - PCIT vs. Waitlist With Minimal Intervention (Thomas, 2011) | |||||
| Parenting Stress Inventory: Difficult Child Scale |
0.20
7 |
- | 77 | - | 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. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.
The findings reported for this program or service are derived from eligible, prioritized studies rated as moderate or high on study design and execution and do not represent the findings from all eligible studies of the program or service. Learn more on the FAQ page.
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.
Studies Rated High
Study 10035McCabe, K., & Yeh, M. (2009). Parent-Child Interaction Therapy for Mexican Americans: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38(5), 753-759. doi:10.1080/15374410903103544
McCabe, K., Yeh, M., Lau, A., Argote, C. B., McCabe, K., Yeh, M., . . . Argote, C. B. (2012). Parent-Child Interaction Therapy for Mexican Americans: results of a pilot randomized clinical trial at follow-up. Behavior Therapy, 43(3), 606-618. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2011.11.001
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 10127
Leung, C., Tsang, S., Ng, G. S. H., & Choi, S. Y. (2017). Efficacy of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy with Chinese ADHD children: Randomized controlled trial. Research on Social Work Practice, 27(1), 36-47.
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 10126
Leung, C., Tsang, S., Sin, T. C. S., & Choi, S. Y. (2015). The efficacy of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy with Chinese families: Randomized controlled trial. Research on Social Work Practice, 25(1), 117-128.
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 10030
Solomon, M., Ono, M., Timmer, S., & Goodlin-Jones, B. (2008). The effectiveness of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy for families of children on the autism spectrum. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(9), 1767-1776. doi:10.1007/s10803-008-0567-5
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 10119
Bjørseth, Å., & Wichstrøm, L. (2016). Effectiveness of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) in the treatment of young children's behavior problems. A randomized controlled study. PLoS ONE, 11(9), e0159845. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159845
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Studies Rated Moderate
Study 10034Matos, M., Bauermeister, J. J., & Bernal, G. (2009). Parent-Child Interaction Therapy for Puerto Rican preschool children with ADHD and behavior problems: A pilot efficacy study. Family Process, 48(2), 232-252.
This study was not conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 10056
Thomas, R., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2011). Accumulating evidence for Parent-Child Interaction Therapy in the prevention of child maltreatment. Child Development, 82(1), 177-192.
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 10031
Bagner, D. M., Sheinkopf, S. J., Vohr, B. R., & Lester, B. M. (2010). Parenting intervention for externalizing behavior problems in children born premature: An initial examination. Journal of Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics, 31(3), 209-216.
Bagner, D. M., Graziano, P. A., Jaccard, J., Sheinkopf, S. J., Vohr, B. R., & Lester, B. M. (2012). An initial investigation of baseline respiratory sinus arrhythmia as a moderator of treatment outcome for young children born premature with externalizing behavior problems. Behavior Therapy, 43(3), 652-665. doi:00004703-200506000-00008.
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 10131
Schuhmann, E. M., Foote, R. C., Eyberg, S. M., Boggs, S. R., & Algina, J. (1998). Efficacy of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy: Interim report of a randomized trial with short-term maintenance. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27(1), 34-45.
This study was not conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 10029
Bagner, D. M., & Eyberg, S. M. (2007). Parent-Child Interaction Therapy for disruptive behavior in children with mental retardation: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(3), 418-429. doi:10.1080/15374410701448448
Bagner, D. M. (2013). Father’s role in parent training for children with developmental delay. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(4), 650-657. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033465
This study was not conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 10054
Abrahamse, M. E., Junger, M., van Wouwe, M. A., Boer, F., & Lindauer, R. J. (2016). Treating child disruptive behavior in high-risk families: A comparative effectiveness trial from a community-based implementation. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 1605-1622. doi:10.1007/s10826-015-0322-4
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Studies Rated Low
Study 10038Nixon, R. D. V., Sweeney, L., Erickson, D. B., & Touyz, S. W. (2003). Parent-Child Interaction Therapy: A comparison of standard and abbreviated treatments for oppositional defiant preschoolers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 251-260. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.71.2.251
Nixon, R. D. V., Sweeney, L., Erickson, D. B., & Touyz, S. W. (2004). Parent-Child Interaction Therapy: One- and two-year follow-up of standard and abbreviated treatments for oppositional preschoolers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(3), 263-271.
This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.Study 10133
Thomas, R., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2012). Parent-Child Interaction Therapy: An evidence-based treatment for child maltreatment. Child Maltreatment, 17(3), 253-266. doi:10.1177/1077559512459555
This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.Study 10122
Funderburk, B. W., Eyberg, S. M., Newcomb, K., McNeil, C. B., Hembree-Kigin, T., & Capage, L. (1998). Parent-Child Interaction Therapy with behavior problem children: Maintenance of treatment effects in the school setting. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 20(2), 17-38.
McNeil, C. B., Eyberg, S., Hembree Eisenstadt, T., Newcomb, K., & Funderburk, B. (1991). Parent-Child Interaction Therapy with behavior problem children: Generalization of treatment effects to the school setting. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 20(2), 140-151.
This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.Study 10057
Webb, H. J., Thomas, R., McGregor, L., Avdagic, E., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2017). An evaluation of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy with and without motivational enhancement to reduce attrition. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 46(4), 537-550. doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1247357
This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.Studies Reviewed for Risk of Harm
Study 10036McNeil, C. B., Capage, L. C., Bahl, A., & Blanc, H. (1999). Importance of early intervention for disruptive behavior problems: Comparison of treatment and waitlist-control groups. Early Education & Development, 10(4), 445-454. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed1004_2
Study 10037Nixon, R. D. V. (2001). Changes in hyperactivity and temperament in behaviourally disturbed preschoolers after Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT). Behaviour Change, 18(3), 168-176.
Study 10055Brestan, E. V., Eyberg, S. M., Boggs, S. R., & Algina, J. (1997). Parent-Child Interaction Therapy: Parents' perceptions of untreated siblings. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 19(3), 13-28. doi:10.1300/J019v19n03_02
Study 10114Abrahamse, M. E., Junger, M., Chavannes, E. L., Coelman, F. J. G., Boer, F., & Lindauer, R. J. L. (2012). Parent-Child Interaction Therapy for preschool children with disruptive behaviour problems in the Netherlands. Child And Adolescent Psychiatry And Mental Health, 6(1), 24-24. doi:10.1186/1753-2000-6-24
Study 10125Leung, C., Tsang, S., Heung, K., & Yiu, I. (2009). Effectiveness of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) among Chinese families. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(3), 304-313.
Study 10135van der Veen-Mulders, L., van den Hoofdakker, B. J., Nauta, M. H., Emmelkamp, P., & Hoekstra, P. J. (2018). Methylphenidate has superior efficacy over Parent-Child Interaction Therapy for preschool children with disruptive behaviors. Journal of Child & Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 28(1), 66-73. doi:10.1089/cap.2017.0123
Studies Not Eligible for Review
Study 10032
Chaffin, M., Silovsky, J. F., Funderburk, B., Valle, L. A., Brestan, E. V., Balachova, T., . . . Bonner, B. L. (2004). Parent-Child Interaction Therapy with physically abusive parents: Efficacy for reducing future abuse reports. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(3), 500-510. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.500
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 10033
Chaffin, M., Funderburk, B., Bard, D., Valle, L. A., & Gurwitch, R. (2011). A combined motivation and Parent-Child Interaction Therapy package reduces child welfare recidivism in a randomized dismantling field trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(1), 84-95. doi:10.1037/a0021227
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 10115
Allen, J., & Marshall, C. R. (2011). Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) in school-aged children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 46(4), 397-410. doi:10.3109/13682822.2010.517600
This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible target outcome (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.5).
Study 10118
Bagner, D., Coxe, S., Hungerford, G., Garcia, D., Barroso, N., Hernandez, J., . . . Barroso, N. E. (2016). Behavioral parent training in infancy: A window of opportunity for high-risk families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(5), 901-912. doi:10.1007/s10802-015-0089-5
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 10120
Blizzard, A. M., Barroso, N. E., Ramos, F. G., Graziano, P. A., & Bagner, D. M. (2017). Behavioral parent training in infancy: What about the parent-infant relationship? Journal Of Clinical Child And Adolescent Psychology, 17, 1-13. doi:10.1080/15374416.2017.1310045
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 10121
Chaffin, M., Valle, L. A., Funderburk, B., Gurwitch, R., Silovsky, J., Bard, D., . . . Kees, M. (2009). A motivational intervention can improve retention in PCIT for low-motivation child welfare clients. Child Maltreatment, 14(4), 356-368. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077559509332263
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 10123
Gross, D. A., Belcher, H. M. E., Ofonedu, M. E., Breitenstein, S., Frick, K. D., & Chakra, B. (2014). Study protocol for a comparative effectiveness trial of two parent training programs in a fee-for-service mental health clinic: Can we improve mental health services to low-income families? Trials, 15, 70. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-70
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 10124
Lanier, P., Kohl, P. L., Benz, J., Swinger, D., Moussette, P., & Drake, B. (2011). Parent-Child Interaction Therapy in a community setting: Examining outcomes, attrition, and treatment setting. Research on Social Work Practice, 1(6), 689-698.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 10128
Luby, J., Lenze, S., & Tillman, R. (2012). A novel early intervention for preschool depression: Findings from a pilot randomized controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(3), 313-322. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02483.x
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 10129
Luby, J. L., Barch, D. M., Whalen, D., Tillman, R., & Freedland, K. E. (2018). A randomized controlled trial of parent-child psychotherapy targeting emotion development for early childhood depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 175(11), 1102-1110. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.18030321
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 10130
Mersky, J. P., Topitzes, J., Grant-Savela, S. D., Brondino, M. J., & McNeil, C. B. (2016). Adapting Parent-Child Interaction Therapy to foster care. Research on Social Work Practice, 26(2), 157-167.
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 10132
Shafiei, B., Faramarzi, S., Abedi, A., Dehqan, A., & Scherer, R. C. (2018). Effects of the Lidcombe Program and Parent-Child Interaction Therapy on stuttering reduction in preschool children. Folia Phoniatrica Et Logopaedica, 71(1), 29-41. doi:10.1159/000493915
This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible target outcome (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.5).
Study 10134
Timmer, S. G., Urquiza, A. J., Boys, D. K., Forte, L. A., Quick-Abdullah, D., Chan, S., & Gould, W. (2016). Filling potholes on the implementation highway: Evaluating the implementation of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy in Los Angeles County. Child Abuse & Neglect, 53, 40-50. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.11.011
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 10236
Scudder, A. T., McNeil, C. B., Chengappa, K., & Costello, A. H. (2014). Evaluation of an existing parenting class within a women's state correctional facility and a parenting class modeled from Parent-Child Interaction Therapy. Children and Youth Services Review, 46, 238-247. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.08.015
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 10238
Wallace, N. M., Quetsch, L. B., Robinson, C., McCoy, K., & McNeil, C. B. (2018). Infusing Parent-Child Interaction Therapy principles into community-based wraparound services: An evaluation of feasibility, child behavior problems, and staff sense of competence. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 567-581. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.04.007
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).