GenerationPMTO – Group
GenerationPMTO – Group, also known as Parenting through Change (PTC) and formerly known as Parent Management Training – Oregon Model (PMTO®), is a group-based parenting and family functioning intervention. The intervention is designed to increase parenting skills and promote effective family management.
In the first session, the GenerationPMTO – Group facilitators engage the treatment families and begin building a collaborative group. In the following sessions, the facilitators teach parents skills such as how to: give good directions and encourage cooperation, observe and regulate emotions, teach children through contingent positive reinforcement (e.g., token systems and incentive charts), set limits and use discipline strategies, balance encouragement and discipline, use active communication, problem-solve and manage family conflicts, monitor children’s activities and behavior, encourage daily school routines and promote school success, strengthen their social support network, and balance work with play. Skills are reinforced with home practice assignments and brief calls between group sessions. The intervention model emphasizes role playing as a teaching tool, using questions to promote learning, and encouraging a united parenting front.
Generation PMTO – Group 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: Mar 2022
Sources
The program or service description, target population, and program or service delivery and implementation information were informed by the following sources: the program or service manual, the program or service developer’s website, the California Evidence Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare, and the studies reviewed.
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
GenerationPMTO – Group serves parents of children ages 2–17 with behavioral problems such as aggression, antisocial behaviors, conduct problems, oppositional defiance, delinquency, and substance use.
Dosage
GenerationPMTO – Group is delivered by two to three parent facilitators in weekly parent group sessions. Each session lasts about 90 minutes. Parents attend 14 sessions over 3–4 months.
Location/Delivery Setting
Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings
GenerationPMTO – Group is delivered in community settings such as outpatient clinics, community-based agencies, and school settings.
Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research
- Mental Health Center, Treatment Center, Therapist Office
Education, Certifications and Training
The organization implementing GenerationPMTO – Group determines the education requirements for facilitators. Facilitators typically have formal training in counseling, clinical social work, or education. Facilitators must attend a 1-day kickoff workshop to build enthusiasm, support buy-in, and begin the process of change. This is followed by two workshops over 10–12 days that focus on learning and practicing model content and the group facilitation process. Workshop trainers employ active teaching techniques, including modeling, video demonstrations, role play, experiential exercises, and video recordings of practice followed by direct feedback. Coaching focuses on content delivery, therapeutic process, and teaching strategies.
Following the first workshop, facilitators begin conducting a group. Following the second workshop, facilitators conduct two additional groups, for a total of three training groups. Group sessions are video recorded for observation-based coaching feedback. Training mentors and coaches review the recordings and provide strength-based written feedback and coaching based on the GenerationPMTO Fidelity Implementation Rating System (FIMP). Facilitators receive at least 12 reflective coaching sessions based on direct observation of their group sessions.
After providing GenerationPMTO – Group to three training groups, facilitators are invited to advance to certification candidacy. To become certified, facilitators submit four video recordings from two new groups. Facilitators must achieve passing scores on all four recordings that are reviewed by FIMP raters. Facilitators are required to participate in ongoing coaching and submit one group session annually for recertification. Facilitators attend a 1-day annual booster workshop.
Program or Service Documentation
Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review
Forgatch, M. S., & Rains, L. A. (2010). Parenting through Change (K. Bryson, Ed.). Implementation Sciences International, Inc.
Available languages
GenerationPMTO – Group materials are available in English, Spanish, Danish, Dutch, Icelandic, and Norwegian.
Other supporting materials
GenerationPMTO – Group Overview
For More Information
Website: https://www.generationpmto.org/
Phone: (541) 485-2711
Contact form: https://www.generationpmto.org/contact
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 GenerationPMTO – Group |
|---|---|
| Identified in Search | 7 |
| Eligible for Review | 3 |
| Rated High | 2 |
| Rated Moderate | 0 |
| Rated Low | 1 |
| 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 |
0.06
2 |
2 (30) | 320 |
Favorable:
5 No Effect: 25 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Child well-being: Social functioning |
0.01
0 |
2 (7) | 294 |
Favorable:
3 No Effect: 4 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Child well-being: Delinquent behavior |
Not Calculated
|
1 (10) | 226 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 9 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices |
0.39
15 |
2 (24) | 310 |
Favorable:
10 No Effect: 14 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health |
-0.13
-5 |
1 (2) | 126 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Family functioning |
0.07
2 |
1 (8) | 184 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 8 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver physical health |
0.05
1 |
1 (2) | 123 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Economic and housing stability |
0.15
6 |
1 (28) | 218 |
Favorable:
3 No Effect: 25 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.
| 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 |
0.06
2 |
2 (30) | 320 |
Favorable:
5 No Effect: 25 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Forgatch, 1999 | |||||
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (Teacher Report) |
-0.01
0 |
- | 168 | - | 8 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Adaptive Functioning (Teacher Report) |
0.20
7 |
- | 168 | - | 8 |
| Child Depression Inventory |
0.16
6 |
- | 157 | - | 2 |
| Child Depression Inventory |
-0.15
-6 |
- | 157 | - | 8 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (Mother Report) |
0.02
0 |
- | 157 | - | 2 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (Mother Report) |
-0.04
-1 |
- | 157 | - | 8 |
| Child Anxiety (Mother Report) |
0.03
1 |
- | 157 | - | 2 |
| Child Anxiety (Mother Report) |
-0.03
-1 |
- | 157 | - | 8 |
| Child Depressed Mood (Mother Report) |
0.06
2 |
- | 157 | - | 2 |
| Child Depressed Mood (Mother Report) |
-0.13
-5 |
- | 157 | - | 8 |
| Forgatch, 2009 | |||||
| Child Behavior Checklist: Delinquency (Teacher Report) |
0.01
0 |
- | 194 | - | 8 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Delinquency (Teacher Report) |
0.15
6 |
- | 177 | - | 20 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Delinquency (Teacher Report) |
0.44
*
16 |
- | 162 | - | 32 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Delinquency (Teacher Report) |
0.23
8 |
- | 132 | - | 80 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Delinquency (Teacher Report) |
0.34
13 |
- | 130 | - | 92 |
| Hukkelberg, 2019a | |||||
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory - 22: Intensity Scale, Oppositional Behavior |
-0.10
-3 |
- | 126 | - | 0 |
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory - 22: Intensity Scale, Conduct Problems |
-0.14
-5 |
- | 126 | - | 0 |
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory - 22: Intensity Scale, Inattentive Behavior |
-0.02
0 |
- | 126 | - | 0 |
| Kjobli, 2013 | |||||
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory - 22: Intensity Scale |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 123 | - | 6 |
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory - 22: Problem Scale |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 126 | - | 0 |
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory - 22: Problem Scale |
Null
not calculated |
- | 123 | - | 6 |
| Home and Community Social Behavior Scales: Conduct Problems (Parent Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 126 | - | 0 |
| Home and Community Social Behavior Scales: Conduct Problems (Parent Report) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 123 | - | 6 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Anxious/Depressed (Parent Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 126 | - | 0 |
| Child Behavior Checklist: Anxious/Depressed (Parent Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 123 | - | 6 |
| School Social Behavior Scales: Conduct Problems (Teacher Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 126 | - | 0 |
| School Social Behavior Scales: Conduct Problems (Teacher Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 123 | - | 6 |
| Teacher Report Form: Anxious/Depressed |
Null
not calculated |
- | 126 | - | 0 |
| Teacher Report Form: Anxious/Depressed |
Null
not calculated |
- | 123 | - | 6 |
| Tommeras, 2018 | |||||
| Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory - 22: Intensity Scale, Total Score |
0.36
*
13 |
- | 126 | - | 0 |
| Child well-being: Social functioning |
0.01
0 |
2 (7) | 294 |
Favorable:
3 No Effect: 4 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Forgatch, 1999 | |||||
| Chedoke-McMaster Teacher Questionnaire: Prosocial Behavior |
-0.02
0 |
- | 168 | - | 8 |
| Children’s Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Scale |
-0.08
-3 |
- | 157 | - | 2 |
| Children’s Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Scale |
0.16
6 |
- | 157 | - | 8 |
| Kjobli, 2013 | |||||
| Home and Community Social Behavior Scales: Social Competence (Parent Report) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 126 | - | 0 |
| Home and Community Social Behavior Scales: Social Competence (Parent Report) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 123 | - | 6 |
| School Social Behavior Scales: Social Competence (Teacher Report) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 126 | - | 0 |
| School Social Behavior Scales: Social Competence (Teacher Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 123 | - | 6 |
| Child well-being: Delinquent behavior |
Not Calculated
|
1 (10) | 226 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 9 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Forgatch, 2009 | |||||
| Arrests (Number) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 226 | - | 2 |
| Arrests (Number) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 226 | - | 8 |
| Arrests (Number) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 226 | - | 14 |
| Arrests (Number) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 226 | - | 20 |
| Arrests (Number) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 226 | - | 26 |
| Arrests (Number) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 226 | - | 32 |
| Arrests (Number) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 226 | - | 68 |
| Arrests (Number) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 226 | - | 80 |
| Arrests (Number) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 226 | - | 92 |
| Arrests (Number) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 226 | - | 104 |
| Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices |
0.39
15 |
2 (24) | 310 |
Favorable:
10 No Effect: 14 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Forgatch, 1999 | |||||
| Negative Reinforcement |
-0.22
-8 |
- | 184 | - | 2 |
| Positive Involvement |
0.08
3 |
- | 184 | - | 2 |
| Positive Involvement |
0.30
11 |
- | 184 | - | 8 |
| Negative Reciprocity |
0.29
11 |
- | 184 | - | 2 |
| Negative Reciprocity |
0.64
*
23 |
- | 184 | - | 8 |
| Skill Encouragement |
0.20
7 |
- | 184 | - | 2 |
| Skill Encouragement |
0.25
9 |
- | 184 | - | 8 |
| Kjobli, 2013 | |||||
| Parenting Practices Interview: Appropriate Discipline (Parent Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 126 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Practices Interview: Appropriate Discipline (Parent Report) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 123 | - | 6 |
| Parenting Practices Interview: Positive Parenting (Parent Report) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 123 | - | 6 |
| Parenting Practices Interview: Harsh Discipline (Parent Report) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 123 | - | 6 |
| Parenting Practices Interview: Inconsistent Discipline (Parent Report) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 123 | - | 6 |
| Parenting Practices Interview: Clear Expectations (Parent Report) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 126 | - | 0 |
| Martinez, 2001 | |||||
| Coercive Discipline |
0.00
0 |
- | 148 | - | 2 |
| Coercive Discipline |
0.50
*
19 |
- | 148 | - | 8 |
| Coercive Discipline |
0.43
*
16 |
- | 148 | - | 14 |
| Coercive Discipline |
0.43
*
16 |
- | 148 | - | 26 |
| Positive Parenting |
0.06
2 |
- | 145 | - | 2 |
| Positive Parenting |
0.29
11 |
- | 145 | - | 8 |
| Positive Parenting |
0.11
4 |
- | 145 | - | 14 |
| Positive Parenting |
0.32
12 |
- | 145 | - | 26 |
| Tommeras, 2018 | |||||
| Parenting Practices Interview: Positive Parenting (Parent Report) |
0.80
*
28 |
- | 126 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Practices Interview: Harsh Discipline (Parent Report) |
0.59
*
22 |
- | 126 | - | 0 |
| Parenting Practices Interview: Inconsistent Discipline (Parent Report) |
0.28
10 |
- | 126 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health |
-0.13
-5 |
1 (2) | 126 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Kjobli, 2013 | |||||
| Symptom Checklist-5: Mental Distress |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 126 | - | 0 |
| Tommeras, 2018 | |||||
| Symptom Checklist-5: Mental Distress |
-0.13
-5 |
- | 123 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Family functioning |
0.07
2 |
1 (8) | 184 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 8 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Forgatch, 1999 | |||||
| Problem-Solving Outcome: Mother-Identified Topic |
0.05
2 |
- | 184 | - | 2 |
| Problem-Solving Outcome: Mother-Identified Topic |
-0.01
0 |
- | 184 | - | 8 |
| Problem-Solving Outcome: Child-Identified Topic |
0.01
0 |
- | 184 | - | 2 |
| Problem-Solving Outcome: Child-Identified Topic |
0.17
6 |
- | 184 | - | 8 |
| Martinez, 2001 | |||||
| Noncompliance |
-0.10
-3 |
- | 140 | - | 2 |
| Noncompliance |
0.06
2 |
- | 140 | - | 8 |
| Noncompliance |
0.06
2 |
- | 140 | - | 14 |
| Noncompliance |
0.29
11 |
- | 140 | - | 26 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver physical health |
0.05
1 |
1 (2) | 123 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 2 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Tommeras, 2018 | |||||
| Somatic Health Status |
0.16
6 |
- | 123 | - | 6 |
| Vitality |
-0.06
-2 |
- | 123 | - | 6 |
| Adult well-being: Economic and housing stability |
0.15
6 |
1 (28) | 218 |
Favorable:
3 No Effect: 25 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Forgatch, 2007 | |||||
| Financial Stress |
0.00
0 |
- | 201 | - | 2 |
| Financial Stress |
0.10
4 |
- | 182 | - | 8 |
| Financial Stress |
0.33
*
13 |
- | 185 | - | 14 |
| Financial Stress |
0.22
8 |
- | 174 | - | 26 |
| Gross Annual Income |
0.03
1 |
- | 201 | - | 2 |
| Gross Annual Income |
0.20
7 |
- | 181 | - | 8 |
| Gross Annual Income |
0.34
*
13 |
- | 184 | - | 14 |
| Gross Annual Income |
0.19
7 |
- | 171 | - | 26 |
| Discretionary Income |
-0.11
-4 |
- | 201 | - | 2 |
| Discretionary Income |
0.05
2 |
- | 182 | - | 8 |
| Discretionary Income |
0.13
5 |
- | 185 | - | 14 |
| Discretionary Income |
0.12
4 |
- | 173 | - | 26 |
| Poverty Threshold Status |
-0.02
0 |
- | 201 | - | 2 |
| Poverty Threshold Status |
-0.05
-1 |
- | 181 | - | 8 |
| Poverty Threshold Status |
0.10
3 |
- | 184 | - | 14 |
| Poverty Threshold Status |
0.34
13 |
- | 171 | - | 26 |
| Income-to-Needs Ratio |
0.00
0 |
- | 201 | - | 2 |
| Income-to-Needs Ratio |
0.17
6 |
- | 181 | - | 8 |
| Income-to-Needs Ratio |
0.32
*
12 |
- | 184 | - | 14 |
| Income-to-Needs Ratio |
0.16
6 |
- | 171 | - | 26 |
| Patterson, 2010 | |||||
| Standard of Living |
0.12
4 |
- | 218 | - | 2 |
| Standard of Living |
0.25
9 |
- | 196 | - | 8 |
| Standard of Living |
0.20
7 |
- | 197 | - | 14 |
| Standard of Living |
0.25
9 |
- | 184 | - | 26 |
| Standard of Living |
0.10
4 |
- | 191 | - | 68 |
| Standard of Living |
0.24
9 |
- | 188 | - | 80 |
| Standard of Living |
0.24
9 |
- | 189 | - | 92 |
| Standard of Living |
0.19
7 |
- | 185 | - | 104 |
*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.
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 11323Kjobli, J., Hukkelberg, S., & Ogden, T. (2013). A randomized trial of group parent training: Reducing child conduct problems in real-world settings. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 51(3), 113-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2012.11.006
Kjobli, J., Zachrisson, H. D., & Bjornebekk, G. (2018). Three randomized effectiveness trials - One question: Can callous-unemotional traits in children be altered? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 47(3), 436-443. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2016.1178123
Tommeras, T., & Kjobli, J. (2017). Family resources and effects on child behavior problem interventions: A cumulative risk approach. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(10), 2936-2947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0777-6
Tommeras, T., Kjobli, J., & Forgatch, M. (2018). Benefits of child behavior interventions for parent well-being. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 67(5), 644-659. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12344
Hukkelberg, S. S. (2019a). A reexamination of child problem behaviors as measured by ECBI: Factor structure and measurement invariance across two parent training interventions. Assessment, 26(7), 1270-1281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117706022
Hukkelberg, S., Tommeraas, T., & Ogden, T. (2019b). Parent training: Effects beyond conduct problems. Children and Youth Services Review, 100, 405-414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.03.009
Study 11317Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. S. (1999). Parenting through change: An effective prevention program for single mothers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(5), 711-724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.67.5.711
Martinez, C. R., Jr., & Forgatch, M. S. (2001). Preventing problems with boys' noncompliance: Effects of a parent training intervention for divorcing mothers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(3), 416-428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.69.3.416
DeGarmo, D. S., Patterson, G. R., & Forgatch, M. S. (2004). How do outcomes in a specified parent training intervention maintain or wane over time? Prevention Science, 5(2), 73-89. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:prev.0000023078.30191.e0
Patterson, G. R., DeGarmo, D., & Forgatch, M. S. (2004). Systematic changes in families following prevention trials. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(6), 621-633. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JACP.0000047211.11826.54
DeGarmo, D. S., & Forgatch, M. S. (2005). Early development of delinquency within divorced families: Evaluating a randomized preventive intervention trial. Developmental Science, 8(3), 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00412.x
Forgatch, M., & DeGarmo, D. (2007). Accelerating recovery from poverty: Prevention effects for recently separated mothers. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavioral Intervention, 4(4), 681-702. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100400
Forgatch, M. S., Patterson, G. R., Degarmo, D. S., & Beldavs, Z. G. (2009). Testing the Oregon delinquency model with 9-year follow-up of the Oregon Divorce Study. Development and Psychopathology, 21(2), 637-660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000340
Patterson, G. R., Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. S. (2010). Cascading effects following intervention. Development and Psychopathology, 22(4), 949-970. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000568
Reed, A., Snyder, J., Staats, S., Forgatch, M. S., DeGarmo, D. S., Patterson, G. R., Low, S., Sinclair, R., & Schmidt, N. (2013). Duration and mutual entrainment of changes in parenting practices engendered by behavioral parent training targeting recently separated mothers. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(3), 343-354. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032887
Forgatch, M. S., Snyder, J. J., Patterson, G. R., Pauldine, M. R., Chaw, Y., Elish, K., Harris, J. B., & Richardson, E. B. (2016). Resurrecting the chimera: Progressions in parenting and peer processes. Development and Psychopathology, 28(3), 689-706. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579416000250
Studies Rated Low
Study 11320He, Y., Gewirtz, A. H., Lee, S., & August, G. (2018). Do parent preferences for child conduct problem interventions impact parenting outcomes? A pilot study in community children's mental health settings. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(4), 716-729. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12310
Gewirtz, A. H., Lee, S. S., August, G. J., & He, Y. (2019). Does giving parents their choice of interventions for child behavior problems improve child outcomes? Prevention Science, 20(1), 78-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0865-x
This study received a low rating because it did not meet the statistical model standards.Studies Not Eligible for Review
Study 11314
Bjørknes, R., Kjøbli, J., Manger, T., & Jakobsen, R. (2012). Parent training among ethnic minorities: Parenting practices as mediators of change in child conduct problems. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 61(1), 101-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00683.x
Bjørknes, R., & Manger, T. (2013). Can parent training alter parent practice and reduce conduct problems in ethnic minority children? A randomized controlled trial. Prevention Science, 14(1), 52-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0299-9
Bjørknes, R., Larsen, M., Gwanzura-Ottemöller, F., & Kjøbli, J. (2015). Exploring mental distress among immigrant mothers participating in parent training. Children and Youth Services Review, 51, 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.01.018
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 11316
Chamberlain, P., Price, J., Reid, J., & Landsverk, J. (2008). Cascading implementation of a foster and kinship parent intervention. Child welfare, 87(5), 27-48.
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 11325
Martinez, C. R., Jr., & Eddy, J. M. (2005). Effects of culturally adapted Parent Management Training on Latino youth behavioral health outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(5), 841-851. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.5.841
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 11326
Ogden, T., Amlund Hagen, K., Askeland, E., & Christensen, B. (2009). Implementing and evaluating evidence-based treatments of conduct problems in children and youth in Norway. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5), 582-591. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731509335530
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).