A competency-based parent training program for child abusers.

Abstract

An intervention program for child abusers was evaluated using multiple outcome criteria and extended follow-up. Families were assigned to treatment (n = 8) and control (n = 8) groups on a first-come basis. All families were supervised by protective services, and none had requested help voluntarily. A treatment program involving group parent training in the clinic and competency-based training and rehearsal in the home was provided. The findings indicated that training abusive parents in child-management and self-control techniques resulted in improvements in parenting skills as measured by home observations, parental reports of child-behavior problems, and caseworker reports of family problems. A 1-year follow-up indicated that no incidences of child abuse among treatment families had been reported to or suspected by caseworkers. Implications for integrating an educational training approach into major services for abusive and high-risk families are discussed.Researchers currently estimate that between 1.4 and 1.9 million children experience physical injury each year as a result of the types of violent behaviors parents use to resolve conflicts with their children (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1979). Child abuse, according to research consensus, appears to be not an isolated act but rather the culmination of excessive use of aversive control tactics, corporal punishment, and ineffective coping on the part of the parent and is due to many interrelated causes and circumstances (see Friedman, 1975, andParke & Collmer, 1975, for reviews). Developers of an effective intervention strategy for child abusers will have to tolerate the many intervening variables that often affect the degree of success in changing patterns of in-

Parenting Programs for the Prevention of Child Physical Abuse Recurrence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The content of the programs was reasonably similar, with a shared focus on teaching and practicing parenting skills and child management strategies to break cycles of coerciveness in parent–child interaction, although some programs also included modules on child health and safety practices (e.g., Chaffin et al 2012). While most programs ran weekly sessions with a similar duration (between 1 and 2 h per session), the total duration of each program varied greatly, with 6 of the programs running for 4–8 months (Chaffin et al 2004, 2011, 2012; Terao 1999; Jouriles et al 2010; Mast et al 2014; Kolko 1996; Runyon et al 2010), some running for only 8 weeks (Hughes and Gottlieb 2004; Swenson et al 2010; Egan 1983; Brunk et al 1987; Wolfe et al 1981), and one for over 2 years (MacMillan et al 2005). Programs were delivered either individually, to groups, or both; and fully or partially delivered in the home (Jouriles et al 2010; Kolko 1996; MacMillan et al 2005; Wolfe et al 1981; Terao 1999), healthcare or other clinics (Chaffin et al 2004, 2011; Brunk et al 1987, Kolko 1996, Wolfe et al 1981, Runyon et al 2010), community centers (Chaffin et al 2012, Hughes and Gottlieb 2004, Swenson et al 2010), and online (Mast et al 2014).…”

Conduct problem behavior: Standardization of a behavioral rating

“…Previous treatment outcome studies have shown the ECBI to be a sensitive measure of change in conduct problem behaviors of children (Eyberg & Matarazzo, 1980;Eyberg & Robinson, 1982;Webster-Stratton, 1982;Wolfe, Sandier, & Kaufman, 1981). The marked differences obtained between conduct problem and normal adolescents in this study suggest that the ECBI may be a sensitive instrument for measuring change in adolescent treatment as well.…”

Parent-Child Interaction Therapy With Behavior Problem Children: Generalization of Treatment Effects to the School Setting

“…The scores have been found to relate significantly to direct observational measures of parent-child interactions, activity level, and temperament (Robinson & Eyberg, 1981;Webster-Stratton & Eyberg, 1982). The ECBI has been shown to be sensitive to treatment eff'ects of parent training programs (Eyberg & Robinson, 1982;Packard, Robinson, & Grove, 1983;Webster-Stratton, 1982, 1984Wolfe, Sandler, & Kaufman, 1981).…”