No registrations found.
ID
Source
Brief title
Health condition
Children at risk for child conduct problems
Sponsors and support
Intervention
Outcome measures
Primary outcome
Component A: Improved parent-child relationship quality, parent-reported (warmth subscale of the Early Childhood Parental Acceptance Rejection Questionnaire; Rohner, 2005) and observed during online etch-a-sketch, Oliver & Pike, 2019; Component B: reduced coercive parent-child interaction cycles, parent-reported (Parent-child Coercive Process Scale; Mitnick et al., 2020) and observed during online etch-a-sketch, Oliver & Pike, 2019; Component C: improved parental self-efficacy, parent-reported (self-efficacy subscale of Me as a Parent)
Secondary outcome
Child conduct problems, parent-reported (Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory; Eyberg & Ross, 1987) and observed during online etch-a-sketch.
Additional included outcomes (T6 and T12) are: parental hostility (PARQ and observed), sibling behavior problems (shortened ECBI), sibling relationship quality (SRQ), parental use of positive reinforcement techniques, parental attribution of disruptive behavior, child CU traits, parental mental health (DASS-21).
All outcomes will be measured at baseline (T0), to allow for moderator analyses. In addition, we will measure at baseline (T0) various sociodemographics (child age and gender, parental educational level and income, single parenthood, cultural identification) to describe the sample and allow for moderator analyses to identify differential effects.
Background summary
Parents concerned about their child's (3-8 yrs) behavior problems will be randomized to any combination, and various sequences, of three parenting program techniques, based on established parenting program content: (A) The Child’s Game (Forehand & McMahon, 1981), in which parents learn to be attentive to their child’s needs and respond to these in a sensitive matter; (B) Positive Notes (Leijten et al., 2016), in which parents learn to shift their attention from disruptive behavior to positive child behavior, and to positively reinforce this behavior; and (C) reflection exercises focusing on Mastery Experiences to increase feelings of parental self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). This factorial experiment consists of 22 conditions. Effects of the three techniques will be tested on their targeted risk factor (A: parent-child relationship quality; B: coercive parent-child interaction cycles; C: parental self-efficacy; primary outcomes) and on children's conduct problems (secondary outcome) immediately after the two-week intervention period and at twelve weeks post baseline.
Study objective
We will test whether each component specifically reduces the risk factor it aims to target: Does component A (relational perspective based child-led play) improve the parent-child relationship, and not coercive parent-child interaction cycles or self-efficacy; does component B (learning theory based positive reinforcement) improve coercive parent-child interaction cycles and not the parent-child relationship or self-efficacy; and does component C (self-efficacy theory based mastery experiences) improve parental self-efficacy and not the parent-child relationship or coercive parent-child interaction cycles. We do not have any a priori hypothesis as to whether effects will or will not be specific.
Study design
T0 (baseline); T2 (two weeks post baseline; immediately after the first component); T4 (four weeks post baseline; immediately after the second component); T6 (six weeks post baseline; immediately after the third component); T12 (twelve weeks post baseline; 6 weeks follow-up of last components)
Intervention
Component A: The Child's Game (Forehand & McMahon, 1981); Component B: Positive Notes (Leijten et al., 2016; Van Aar et al., 2020); Component C: Mastery Experiences (Bandura, 1997). Each components consists of an animation clip explaining the technique and daily exercises for two weeks.
Inclusion criteria
Child age 3-8 yrs; parental concern about children's conduct problems.
Exclusion criteria
Identified low IQ (<75); autism spectrum disorder.
Design
Recruitment
IPD sharing statement
Plan description
Followed up by the following (possibly more current) registration
No registrations found.
Other (possibly less up-to-date) registrations in this register
No registrations found.
In other registers
Register | ID |
---|---|
NTR-new | NL9052 |
Other | Departmental Ethics Committee Research Institute Child Development and Education : 2020-CDE-12599 |