| Title |
Evaluating Practitioner Training to Improve Competencies and Organizational Practices for Engaging Fathers in Parenting Interventions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Child Psychiatry & Human Development, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10578-018-0836-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. Burn, L. A. Tully, Y. Jiang, P. J. Piotrowska, D. A. J. Collins, K. Sargeant, D. Hawes, C. Moul, R. K. Lenroot, P. J. Frick, V. Anderson, E. R. Kimonis, M. R. Dadds |
| Abstract |
Fathers are consistently underrepresented in parenting interventions and practitioners are an important target for change in interventions to enhance father engagement. This research examined the effects of two practitioner training programs in improving practitioner rated competencies and organizational father-inclusive practices. Two studies were conducted, each with a single group, repeated measures (pre, post and 2-month follow-up) design. Study 1 (N = 233) examined the outcomes of face-to-face training in improving practitioner ratings of competencies in engaging fathers, perceived effectiveness and use of father engagement strategies, organizational practices and rates of father engagement. Study 2 (N = 356) examined online training using the same outcome measures. Practitioners in both training formats improved in their competencies, organizational practices and rates of father engagement over time, yet those in the online format deteriorated in three competencies from post-training to follow-up. The implications for delivering practitioner training programs to enhance competencies and rates of father engagement are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 24 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 15 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 26 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 January 2020.
All research outputs
#4,094,752
of 23,306,612 outputs
Outputs from Child Psychiatry & Human Development
#160
of 936 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,178
of 330,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Child Psychiatry & Human Development
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,306,612 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 936 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,915 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.