Triple P – Positive Parenting Program – Group (Level 4)

Mental Health Promising

Triple P – Positive Parenting Program – Group (Level 4) (“Triple P – Group”) is a group-based parenting intervention for families with children who exhibit behavior or emotional difficulties. Group sessions typically focus on topics such as positive parenting, helping children develop, managing misbehavior, and planning ahead. Practitioners then provide individual feedback on progress using positive parenting strategies and goal setting.


Triple P – Positive Parenting Program – Group (Level 4) is rated as a promising practice because at least one study achieved a rating of moderate or high on study design and execution and demonstrated a favorable effect on a target outcome.


Date Research Evidence Last Reviewed: Aug 2020


Sources

The program or service description, target population, and program or service delivery and implementation information was informed by the following sources: the California Evidence-based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare, the Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness review, the program or service developer’s website, the program or service manual, 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

Triple P – Group serves families with children (age birth to 12 years) who exhibit behavior or emotional difficulties.

Dosage

Parents are typically offered 5 in-person group sessions, with up to 12 parents participating in each group. Each session is 2 hours. Practitioners then provide feedback to parents during 3 individual phone counseling sessions, each lasting 15 to 30 minutes, conducted over a 3 week period.

Location/Delivery Setting
Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings

Group sessions are delivered in-person. Practitioners also provide feedback individually to parents over the phone.

Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research

  • Mental Health Center, Treatment Center, Therapist Office
  • Maternal and Child Health Center
  • Phone Counseling
  • Community Center (e.g., religious or recreational facility)

Education, Certifications and Training

All Triple P – Group practitioners must complete a 3-day training program. This training covers topics such as applying parenting strategies, identifying risk and protective factors in families, facilitating active skills training with groups, and making referrals. Practitioners must also participate in a 1-day pre-accreditation process where they practice specific competencies and receive individualized feedback. Then, 6 to 8 weeks later, practitioners complete a half-day accreditation workshop in which they demonstrate proficiency in key competency areas. Continued support is offered to practitioners through monthly peer support sessions. There are no specific educational or background prerequisites for Triple P – Group practitioners; however, experience with and knowledge of child development is preferred.

Program or Service Documentation
Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review

Turner, K. M. T., Markie-Dadds, C., & Sanders, M. R. (2010). Facilitator’s manual for Group Triple P (3rd ed.). Triple P International Pty Ltd.

Available languages

Triple P parent resources are available in English and 21 other languages. Practitioner resources are available in English, Spanish, Dutch, German, Japanese, French, Swedish, and other languages.

Other supporting materials

Training Overview

Accreditation Process

Contact Information for Developers

Website: https://www.triplep.net/glo-en/home/

Phone: 803-451-2278

Email: contact.us@triplep.net

Results of Search and Review Number of Studies Identified and Reviewed for Triple P – Positive Parenting Program – Group (Level 4)
Identified in Search 37
Eligible for Review 18
Rated High 2
Rated Moderate 5
Rated Low 11
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 0.19
7
6 (16) 615 Favorable: 4
No Effect: 11
Unfavorable: 1
Child well-being: Social functioning 0.10
4
1 (2) 288 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 2
Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices 0.36
14
6 (14) 591 Favorable: 11
No Effect: 3
Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health 0.59
22
4 (12) 191 Favorable: 4
No Effect: 8
Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Family functioning 0.24
9
2 (3) 120 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 3
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.

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 0.19
7
6 (16) 615 Favorable: 4
No Effect: 11
Unfavorable: 1
-
Eisner, 2012
Social Behavior Questionnaire: Aggressive Behavior (Parent Report) 0.02
0
- 288 - 5
Social Behavior Questionnaire: Internalizing Problems (Teacher Report) -0.32 *
-12
- 288 - 5
Social Behavior Questionnaire: Non-Aggressive Conduct Problems (Child Report) 0.10
4
- 288 - 5
Social Behavior Questionnaire: Aggressive Behavior (Child Report) 0.11
4
- 288 - 5
Gallart, 2005
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Intensity Scale 0.57
21
- 32 - 0
Khademi, 2019
Conners' Parent Rating Scale: ADHD Total Score 0.46 *
17
- 94 - 0
Conners' Parent Rating Scale: Hyperactivity 0.59 *
22
- 94 - 0
Leung, 2003
Parent Daily Report 0.45
17
- 69 - 0
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Intensity Scale 0.75 *
27
- 69 - 0
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Conduct Problems 0.67 *
24
- 69 - 0
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Emotional Symptoms 0.36
13
- 69 - 0
Leung, 2013
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Intensity Scale 0.28
11
- 81 - 0
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Problem Scale 0.21
8
- 81 - 0
Matsumoto, 2010
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Problem Scale -0.14
-5
- 51 - 0
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Peer Relationship Problems 0.02
0
- 51 - 0
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Prosocial Behaviour 0.13
5
- 51 - 0
Child well-being: Social functioning 0.10
4
1 (2) 288 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 2
Unfavorable: 0
-
Eisner, 2012
Social Behavior Questionnaire: Prosocial Behavior (Teacher Report) 0.08
3
- 288 - 5
Social Behavior Questionnaire: Prosocial Behavior (Child Report) 0.13
4
- 288 - 5
Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices 0.36
14
6 (14) 591 Favorable: 11
No Effect: 3
Unfavorable: 0
-
Aghebati, 2014
Parenting Scale: Total Score 0.96 *
33
- 27 - 0
Parental Bonding Instrument: Parental Overprotection 1.94 *
47
- 27 - 0
Parental Bonding Instrument: Parental Care 1.17 *
37
- 27 - 0
Eisner, 2012
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Parental Involvement -0.03
-1
- 288 - 5
Gallart, 2005
Parenting Scale: Total Score 0.69
25
- 32 - 0
Khademi, 2019
Parenting Sense of Competence Scale: Total Score 0.68 *
25
- 94 - 0
Parenting Scale: Total Score 1.15 *
37
- 94 - 0
Leung, 2003
Parenting Sense of Competence Scale: Total Scale 0.76 *
27
- 69 - 0
Parenting Sense of Competence Scale: Parental Efficacy 0.89 *
31
- 69 - 0
Parent Problem Checklist 0.72 *
26
- 69 - 0
Parenting Scale: Laxness 0.79 *
28
- 69 - 0
Parenting Scale: Overreactivity 0.69 *
25
- 69 - 0
Leung, 2013
Parenting Scale: Laxness 0.42
16
- 81 - 0
Parenting Scale: Overreactivity 0.49 *
18
- 81 - 0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health 0.59
22
4 (12) 191 Favorable: 4
No Effect: 8
Unfavorable: 0
-
Aghebati, 2014
Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42: Depression 2.66 *
49
- 27 - 0
Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42: Anxiety 1.93 *
47
- 27 - 0
Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42: Stress 2.62 *
49
- 27 - 0
Gallart, 2005
Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42: Depression 0.67
24
- 32 - 0
Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42: Anxiety 0.65
24
- 32 - 0
Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42: Stress 0.50
19
- 32 - 0
Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42: Total Score 0.68
25
- 32 - 0
Leung, 2013
Parental Stress Scale 0.43
16
- 81 - 0
Parent Problem Checklist: Intensity 0.33
12
- 78 - 0
Parent Problem Checklist: Concern 0.57 *
21
- 78 - 0
Matsumoto, 2010
Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42: Anxiety -0.04
-1
- 51 - 0
Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42: Stress 0.48
18
- 51 - 0
Adult well-being: Family functioning 0.24
9
2 (3) 120 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 3
Unfavorable: 0
-
Leung, 2003
Relationship Quality Index 0.24
9
- 69 - 0
Matsumoto, 2010
Parent Problem Checklist: Concern 0.41
15
- 51 - 0
Relationship Quality Index 0.05
1
- 51 - 0

*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.

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.

Sometimes study results are reported in more than one document, or a single document reports results from multiple studies. Studies are identified below by their Prevention Services Clearinghouse study identification numbers.

Studies Rated High

Study 10754

Gallart, S. C., & Matthey, S. (2005). The effectiveness of Group Triple P and the impact of the four telephone contacts. Behaviour Change, 22(2), 71-80. https://doi.org/10.1375/bech.2005.22.2.71

Study 10764

Leung, C., Fan, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2013). The effectiveness of a Group Triple P with Chinese parents who have a child with developmental disabilities: A randomized controlled trial. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(3), 976-984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.11.023


Studies Rated Moderate

Study 10738

Aghebati, A., Gharraee, B., Hakim Shoshtari, M., & Gohari, M. R. (2014). Triple P-Positive Parenting Program for mothers of ADHD children. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 8(1), 59-65.

Study 10769

Matsumoto, Y., Sofronoff, K., & Sanders, M. R. (2010). Investigation of the effectiveness and social validity of the Triple P Positive Parenting Program in Japanese society. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(1), 87-91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018181

Study 10763

Leung, C., Sanders, M. R., Leung, S., Mak, R., & Lau, J. (2003). An outcome evaluation of the implementation of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in Hong Kong. Family Process, 42(4), 531-544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2003.00531.x

Study 10761

Khademi, M., Ayatmehr, F., Mehr, N. K., Razjooyan, K., Ashtiani, R. D., & Arabgol, F. (2019). Evaluation of the effects of positive parenting program on symptoms of preschool children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Practice in Clinical Psychology, 7(1), 11-20. https://doi.org/10.32598/jpcp.7.1.11

Study 10751

Eisner, M., Nagin, D., Ribeaud, D., & Malti, T. (2012). Effects of a universal parenting program for highly adherent parents: A propensity score matching approach. Prevention Science, 13(3), 252-266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-011-0266-x


Studies Rated Low

Study 10786

Zubrick, S. R., Ward, K. A., Silburn, S. R., Lawrence, D., Williams, A. A., Blair, E., Robertson, D., & Sanders, M. R. (2005). Prevention of child behavior problems through universal implementation of a group behavioral family intervention. Prevention Science, 6(4), 287-304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-005-0013-2

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 10767

Martin, A. J., & Sanders, M. R. (2003). Balancing work and family: A controlled evaluation of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program as a work-site intervention. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 8(4), 161-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-3588.00066

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 10755

Guo, M., Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2016). A randomized controlled trial of Group Triple P with Chinese parents in Mainland China. Behavior Modification, 40(6), 825-851. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445516644221

This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.
Study 10768

Matsumoto, Y., Sofronoff, K., & Sanders, M. R. (2007). The efficacy and acceptability of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program with Japanese parents. Behaviour Change, 24(4), 205-218. https://doi.org/10.1375/bech.24.4.205

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 10740

Au, A., Lau, K. M., Wong, A. H. C., Lam, C., Leung, C., Lau, J., & Lee, Y. K. (2014). The efficacy of a Group Triple P (Positive Parenting Program) for Chinese parents with a child diagnosed with ADHD in Hong Kong: A pilot randomised controlled study. Australian Psychologist, 49(3), 151-162. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12053

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.
Study 10742

Bodenmann, G., Cina, A., Ledermann, T., & Sanders, M. R. (2008). The efficacy of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in improving parenting and child behavior: A comparison with two other treatment conditions. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46(4), 411-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2008.01.001

Zemp, M., Milek, A., Cummings, E. M., Cina, A., & Bodenmann, G. (2016). How couple- and parenting-focused programs affect child behavioral problems: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(3), 798-810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0260-1

Zemp, M., Milek, A., Davies, P. T., & Bodenmann, G. (2016). Improved child problem behavior enhances the parents' relationship quality: A randomized trial. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(8), 896-906. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000212

Zemp, M., Milek, A., Cummings, E. M., & Bodenmann, G. (2017). Longitudinal interrelations between dyadic coping and coparenting conflict in couples. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(8), 2276-2290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0742-4

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.
Study 10780

Tully, L. A., & Hunt, C. (2017). A randomized controlled trial of a brief versus standard group parenting program for toddler aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 43(3), 291-303. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21689

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 10757

Kuschel, A., Heinrichs, N., & Hahlweg, K. (2009). Is a preventive parenting program effective in reducing a child's externalizing behavior? European Journal of Developmental Science, 3(3), 299-303. http://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-2009-3308

Hahlweg, K., Heinrichs, N., Kuschel, A., Bertram, H., & Naumann, S. (2010). Long-term outcome of a randomized controlled universal prevention trial through a positive parenting program: Is it worth the effort? Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4, 14-27. https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-2000-4-14

Heinrichs, N., Kliem, S., & Hahlweg, K. (2014). Four-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of Triple P Group for parent and child outcomes. Prevention Science, 15(2), 233-245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0358-2

Heinrichs, N., Kliem, S., & Hahlweg, K. (2017). 'Four-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of Triple P group for parent and child outcomes': Addendum. Prevention Science, 18(4), 491-503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0782-4

Heinrichs, N., Bertram, H., Kuschel, A., & Hahlweg, K. (2005). Parent recruitment and retention in a universal prevention program for child behavior and emotional problems: Barriers to research and program participation. Prevention Science, 6(4), 275-286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-005-0006-1

This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.
Study 10762

Kousha, M., & Abbasi Kakrodi, M. (2019). Can parents improve the quality of life of their children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? Iranian Journal Of Psychiatry, 14(2), 154-159. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijps.v14i2.995

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.
Study 10773

Özyurt, G., Gencer, Ö., Öztürk, Y., & Özbek, A. (2016). Is Triple P Positive Parenting Program effective on anxious children and their parents? 4th month follow up results. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(5), 1646-1655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0343-z

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 10753

Fujiwara, T., Kato, N., & Sanders, M. R. (2011). Effectiveness of Group Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) in changing child behavior, parenting style, and parental adjustment: An intervention study in Japan. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20(6), 804-813. htps://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9448-1

Fujiwara, T., Kato, N., & Sanders, M. (2015). Erratum to: Effectiveness of Group Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) in changing child behavior, parenting style, and parental adjustment: An intervention study in Japan. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(5), 1526-1526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0163-1

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.


Studies Not Eligible for Review

Study 10739

Ashori, M., Norouzi, G., & Jalil-Abkenar, S. S. (2019). The effect of positive parenting program on mental health in mothers of children with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 23(3), 385-396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629518824899

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 10741

Baker, S., & Sanders, M. R. (2017). Predictors of program use and child and parent outcomes of a brief online parenting intervention. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 48(5), 807-817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-016-0706-8

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 10744

Dahinten, V. S., Arim, R. G., Guèvremont, A., & Kohen, D. E. (2014). The case for using administrative data to examine a population-based parenting intervention. International Journal of Child Health and Human Development, 7(2), 115-124.

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 10745

David, O. A. (2014). The Rational Positive Parenting program for child externalizing behavior: Mechanisms of change analysis. Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies, 14(1), 21-38.

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 10748

Doyle, O., Hegarty, M., & Owens, C. (2018). Population-based system of parenting support to reduce the prevalence of child social, emotional, and behavioural problems: Difference-in-differences study. Prevention Science, 19(6), 772-781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0907-4

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 10749

Duncombe, M. E., Havighurst, S. S., Kehoe, C. E., Holland, K. A., Frankling, E. J., & Stargatt, R. (2016). Comparing an emotion- and a behavior-focused parenting program as part of a multsystemic intervention for child conduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 45(3), 320-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2014.963855

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 10752

Frank, T. J., Keown, L. J., & Sanders, M. R. (2015). Enhancing father engagement and interparental teamwork in an evidence-based parenting intervention: A randomized-controlled trial of outcomes and processes. Behavior Therapy, 46(6), 749-763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2015.05.008

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 10758

Jalali, M., Pourahmadi, E., Tahmassian, K., & Shaeiri, M. (2008). The effectiveness of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program on psychological well being of mothers of children with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). Journal of Family Research, 4(4), 353-368.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not available in English (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.3).

Study 10759

Jones, S., Calam, R., Sanders, M., Diggle, P. J., Dempsey, R., & Sadhnani, V. (2014). A pilot web based positive parenting intervention to help bipolar parents to improve perceived parenting skills and child outcomes. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 42(3), 283-296. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135246581300009X

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 10760

Keown, L. J., Sanders, M. R., Franke, N., & Shepherd, M. (2018). Te whānau pou toru: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a culturally adapted low-intensity variant of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program for indigenous Māori families in New Zealand. Prevention Science, 19(7), 954-965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0886-5

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 10765

Lundin, M., & Karlsson, M. (2014). Estimation of causal effects in observational studies with interference between units. Statistical Methods and Applications, 23(3), 417-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10260-014-0257-8

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 10770

McTaggart, P., & Sanders, M. R. (2003). The Transition to School Project: Results from the classroom. Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 2(3), 144-155. https://doi.org/10.5172/jamh.2.3.144

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 10771

Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. (2009). An evaluation of a behavioural parenting intervention for parents of gifted children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47(6), 463-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2009.02.008

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 10772

Morawska, A., Mitchell, A. E., Burgess, S., & Fraser, J. (2016). Effects of Triple P parenting intervention on child health outcomes for childhood asthma and eczema: Randomised controlled trial. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 83, 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2016.06.001

Morawska, A., Mitchell, A., Burgess, S., & Fraser, J. (2017). Randomized controlled trial of Triple P for parents of children with asthma or eczema: Effects on parenting and child behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85(4), 283-296. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000177

Morawska, A., Mitchell, A. E., Burgess, S., & Fraser, J. (2017). 'Effects of Triple P parenting intervention on child health outcomes for childhood asthma and eczema: Randomised controlled trial': Corrigendum. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 92, 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2016.12.017

Morawska, A., Mitchell, A. E., Burgess, S., & Fraser, J. (2017). Fathers' perceptions of change following parenting intervention: Randomized controlled trial of Triple P for parents of children with asthma or eczema. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 42(7), 792-803. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsw106

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 10774

Pickering, J. A., & Sanders, M. R. (2016). The protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a brief intervention for parents of children experiencing sibling conflict. Clinical Psychologist, 20(2), 86-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/cp.12051

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 10777

Turner, K. M., Richards, M., & Sanders, M. R. (2007). Randomised clinical trial of a group parent education programme for Australian Indigenous families. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 43(6), 429-437. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1754.2002.00077.x-i1

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 10778

Schilling, S., Lanier, P., Rose, R. A., Shanahan, M., & Zolotor, A. J. (2019). A quasi-experimental effectiveness study of Triple P on child maltreatment. Journal of Family Violence, 35(4), 373-383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00043-5

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 10779

Tellegen, C. L., & Johnston, E. (2017). A service-based evaluation of the effectiveness of an all-day group parenting program. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(2), 664-673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0630-3

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 10785

Zamani, R., Gahari, S., & Pourrahhimi, M. (2017). Effect of teaching positive parenting program to mothers on reducing behavioral problems in children with oppositional defiant disorder: Paper presented at the International Educational Technology Conference and International Teacher Education Conference. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 208-213.

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible publication source (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.2).