(Goodman, 1997), showed that the mean child overall score and behavioural difficulties score went from being categorized as ‘very high’ pre-intervention to ‘high’ post-intervention. Scores from the subscales ‘emotional distress’, ‘hyperactivity difficulties’, and ‘difficulties with peers’ reduced from a categorization of ‘high’ to ‘slightly raised’. Prosocial behaviour also increased from ‘low’ to ‘slightly lowered’ in comparison to the norm. Parental Empathy Empathy was measured using the IRI and the ‘adherence to CPS philosophy’ subscale of the TK-COT (see Table 2). A total empathy score was created by adding the ‘perspective taking’ subscale score of the IRI with the ‘adherence to CPS philosophy’ subscale score of the TK-COT. The majority of the data appeared normally distributed, with the exception of the post kurtosis score for the IRI emotional concern subscale (see Table 3). Skew and kurtosis scores between -2 and +2 are considered to be acceptable indicators of a normal distribution (George & Mallery, 2010). As the post IRI emotional concern kurtosis value was 3.807, performing statistical tests that assume normal distribution may be inaccurate. In order to account for this, the bootstrap method using 2,000 bootstrap samples was used, which does not assume normality (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). The results showed a significant increase in overall parental empathy from to post-intervention. Analysing data from the subscale scores indicated that following the CPS intervention there was a significant increase in parental perspective taking and a significant increase in adherence to the CPS philosophy that ‘children do well if they can’. No significant differences were found between pre and post-intervention on the IRI subscales of parental emotional concern and parental personal distress. Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges and Results from Paired Sample Measure Subscale Mean Pre (SD) Mean Post (SD) Possible score ranges Mean Difference 95% CI t(df) p d SDQ Overall pre-
involve for you. Please take the time to read the following information carefully. Talk to others about the study if you wish. What is the purpose of the study? This study seeks to investigate what factors may be influencing Collaborative Problem Solving treatment outcomes. It also aims to build upon previous research to explore whether using Collaborative Problem Solving in an in-home treatment programme reduces child and/or adolescent behavioural difficulties, and if so, whether this is maintained two months following treatment. Why have I been invited to take part in the study? Because you have been referred for the in-home treatment programme at xxxxx Do I have to take part? No, you do not have to participate. There will be no adverse consequences in terms of your care or treatment if you decide not to participate. You can withdraw from the study at any time without giving a reason. What will my involvement require? Your consent for the researcher to access your data from the questionnaire measures collected by xxxxx. You will also be asked to complete two additional questionnaires. The questionnaires will be given to you before and after treatment by your caseworker. These additional questionnaires will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. What will I have to do? If you would like to take part please sign the consent form attached and return this to your case worker. What are the possible disadvantages or risks of taking part?
Figure 1: Search procedure for parental empathy papers Articles included in the review (N= 8) Full text articles assessed for eligibility (N= 37) Exclusion of articles after screening (N= 29) • Reason 1: Not an intervention study (n=10) • Reason 2: Intervention not focused on improving EF (n=11) • Reason 3: Intervention not aimed at reducing behavioral difficulties (n=4) • Reason 4: Written in a different language (n=2) Excluded – did not meet criteria (N=305)
N = 110 mothers 147 children aged 11-14 (M=12.46). 50% male Community sample Ppts who declined the intervention formed the control group (n=66). Parents completed: • Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (Johnston & Mash, 1989) • Eyberg Behavior Inventory (Eyberg & Ross, 1978) • Parental Behavioral Control Scale (Kerr & Stattin, 2000) • Parental Reactions Scale (Tilton, Weaver et al., 2010) • Treatment Engagement and Client Satisfaction (Moretti & Osbuth, 2009) Adolescents completed: • Alcohol and cigarette use questionnaire (Giannotta, Ortega, & Stattin, 2013) Post intervention mothers reported a slight reduction in coldness and rejection compared to the control (p=.11, d=.32) A moderate significant reduction in alcohol consumption among youths in the treatment group. No other significant results were found among any of the other measures A high attrition rate was observed for both the intervention group (32%) and the control group (27%). Van Zeijl et al. (2006), Holland Video-feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting and Sensitive Discipline (VIPP-SD) -attachment based intervention that aims to increase maternal sensitivity, empathy, responsiveness and sensitive discipline towards the child. 6 week intervention Randomized controlled between subjects N = 237 mothers 237 children aged 1-3. 56% boys Clinical sample - children with externalising behaviour difficulties Randomly allocated to intervention (n=120) or control Mothers completed: • Daily Hassles (Kanner, Coyne, Schaffer & Lazarus, 1981) • Dutch Family Problems Questionnaire (Koot, 1997) – marital discord subscale used • Cantrill Ladder (Cantrill, 1965) • Infant Characteristics Questionnaire (Bates, Freeland, & Lounsbury, 1979) • Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1981). • Maternal attitudes towards sensitivity and sensitive discipline & Van IJzendoorn, 2003) • Maternal sensitivity and maternal discipline - observed in laboratory sessions