↓ Skip to main content

Effects of a Universal Parenting Program for Highly Adherent Parents: A Propensity Score Matching Approach

Overview of attention for article published in Prevention Science, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of a Universal Parenting Program for Highly Adherent Parents: A Propensity Score Matching Approach
Published in
Prevention Science, January 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11121-011-0266-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manuel Eisner, Daniel Nagin, Denis Ribeaud, Tina Malti

Abstract

This paper examines the effectiveness of a group-based universal parent training program as a strategy to improve parenting practices and prevent child problem behavior. In a dissemination trial, 56 schools were first selected through a stratified sampling procedure, and then randomly allocated to treatment conditions. 819 parents of year 1 primary school children in 28 schools were offered Triple P. 856 families in 28 schools were allocated to the control condition. Teacher, primary caregiver and child self-report data were collected at baseline, post, and two follow-up assessments. Analyses were constrained to highly adherent parents who completed all four units of the parenting program. A propensity score matching approach was used to compare parents fully exposed to the intervention with parents in the control condition, who were matched on 54 baseline characteristics. Results suggest that the intervention had no consistent effects on either five dimensions of parenting practices or five dimensions of child problem behavior, assessed by three different informants. These findings diverge from findings reported by program developers and distributors. Potential explanations for the discrepancy and implications for future research are discussed.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 128 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 19%
Student > Master 25 19%
Researcher 16 12%
Professor 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 22 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 24%
Social Sciences 30 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 35 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 August 2016.
All research outputs
#14,142,336
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#690
of 1,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,003
of 243,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,023 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 243,229 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.