the 3 faces of dpics: examining coding protocols for research & practice susan timmer, phd.,...
Post on 15-Jan-2016
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
The 3 Faces of DPICS:Examining coding protocols for
research & practice
Susan Timmer, PhD., Nancy Zebell, PhD.
Anthony Urquiza, PhD
CAARE Diagnostic and Treatment CenterDepartment of Pediatrics
UC Davis Children’s HospitalSacramento, CA916 734-6610
www.pcittrainingcenter.orgCopyright 2004. UC Regents. All rights reserved.
Acknowledgments
Michelle CulverRyan Fussell
Dianne ThompsonLindsay Klisanac
Erica GoudeAlan Chan
Natalie LambdinDavid Benjamin
Grace Silvia
Objectives
• Explore different ways of using DPICS to assess treatment progress at mid-treatment.
• Discuss the usefulness of conducting a mid-treatment DPICS assessment.
Reviewing the Goals of CDI
• General Treatment Goal: – Help parent develop warm, sensitive
parenting style while still able to set limits in a non-coercive way (Baumrind, 1966).
• Goal of PCIT therapist:– Adjust specific patterns of parents’ verbal
behavior, thereby adjusting parents’ and children’s expectations of one another, and the quality of their relationships.
PCIT Model of Change
Model:
Proximal: primary goal Secondary Goal
Change parent verbal Change of qualityresponses to child behavior of parenting
Change child’s behavior
Mid-treatment DPICS Assessment: Current
practices at UCD CAARE• Parents must meet mastery criteria twice during the 5-minute coding in CDI sessions. Decision to move dyad to PDI is based on CDI performance, not mid-treatment assessment.
•15 Minute DPICS videotaped
•Only CDI segment of DPICS is coded (live) to check parents’ continued use of PRIDE skills. A 5-minute coding is done throughout treatment using CDI instructions.
•Agencies trained by UCD CAARE are told that Mid-Treatment DPICS is optional.
Goals & Purposes of a Assessment at Mid-
Treatment• Goals:
– Measure the degree to which therapists’ have changed parents’ verbal behavior
– Measure the degree to which the changes in verbal behavior have changed the quality of the parent-child relationship.
• Purposes:– Better understanding of parents’ generalization
of CDI skills to different situations.
– Better understanding of child’s response to parent’s use of power and control in context of their new CDI skills.
– Greater sensitivity to dyads’ strengths and weaknesses.
Method & Procedure
•CODING OF 15-MINUTE DPICS ASSESSMENT MID-TREATMENT
– DPICS II coding of mother & child verbalizations– 5-minute CDI– 2 minutes each of CDI, PDI, and Clean Up
–Emotional Availability (CDI, PDI, & CU) using EA Scales, 3rd Ed. (Biringen, 1998). Parent scales quantify sensitivity, hostility, intrusiveness, & structuring. Child scales quantify responsiveness to parent & involvement of parent in play.
–Why the first 2 minutes of CDI, PDI & CU? (Maximizes times of transition)
–Why use EA scales? (Need to measure the global quality of the parent-child relationship)
Sample Description25 Biological Mother-Child dyads:
Children-
Sex : 80% male (20 boys)
Mean age: 4.00 yrs (Range, 2 – 6 yrs)
Ethnicity: 80% Caucasian
Physically abused: 49%
Mothers-
Mean age: 28.9 yrs (Range, 22 – 42 yrs.)
Education: 64% HS grad or less, mean 12.6 yrs.
Marital status: 32% married, 40% divorced/separated, 28% single
Perpetrators of abuse: 20%
Victims of domestic violence: 24%
Question 1: Is 2 minutes of coding a representative sample of a 5 minute segment of CDI at Mid-treatment?Question 2: What does 2 CDI-2 PDI-2 CU coding indicate that 5 minutes of CDI does not?
Table 1: % of Verbalizations in 5 minutes of CDI, 2 minutes of CDI, and 2 minutes of CDI, PDI, and CU combined (6 minutes total)
5 min CDI 2 min CDI 2 CDI -2 PDI -2 CU
% of parent total
BD % 7.4% 5.5% * 3.7 ***ID 35.7 34.2 ns 36.4 ns
UP 10.2 10.1 ns 9.3 ns
LP 10.6 9.1 ns 6.7 **RF 8.2 10.4 * 5.7 ***Q 5.9 6.6 ns 6.6 ns
DC + IC 7.5 8.3 ns 20.4 ***CR 0.8 0.8 ns 1.3 ns
Child CR 4.9 4.8 ns 16.7 **
Summary of analyses of DPICS II coding
• 5 min vs 2 min CDI comparisons revealed few differences. Only fewer BDs and more RFs are observed. Other percentages of parent verbalizations did not differ significantly.– Conclusion: Coding for 2 minutes may be sufficient
to obtain a representative sample of parent-child interactions.
• 5 minutes of CDI vs. the first 2 minutes of CDI, PDI, and CU show significantly more commands, and fewer BDs, RFs, and LPs. A significant increase in child critical statements were also observed.– Conclusion: Greater total numbers of parent
commands and child critical statements suggest that CDI skills might not be generally maintained across PDI and Clean-Up.
Using EA to detect differences in parenting
qualityTable 2: Mean scores parent EA scales in CDI,
PDI, and CU
CDI PDI CU (Range/ Opt.)
Parent Scales Sensitivity 6.7 5.6 5.4 (1-9/ 6+) Hostility 4.9 4.6 4.4 (1-5/ 5) Intrusiveness 4.0 3.8 3.7 (1-5/ 4+) Structuring 4.3 3.4 3.6 (1-5/ 4+)Child Scales Responsiveness5.2 4.1 4.0 (1-7/ 5+) Involvement 5.3 4.4 4.0 (1-7/ 5+)
Using EA to detect differences in parenting
qualityTable 3: Number of mothers with no, 1-2, or 3-4 parent EA
scales in non-optimal range (sensitivity, hostility, intrusiveness, structuring) in CDI, PDI, and CU.
# Non-optimal CDI PDI CU None 13 5 51 – 2 9 10 73 – 4 3 10 13
• Cluster analysis using numbers of non-optimal scales in CDI, PDI, & CU revealed 3 groups with different patterns of parenting quality in the DPICS assessment:
– Optimal parenting CDI, PDI, CU (N=9)– Mixed: Optimal parenting CDI, non-optimal PDI & CU (N=10)– Non-optimal parenting CDI, PDI, CU (N=6)
Question 3: How can we tell these groups apart by looking at parents’ DPICS verbalization patterns?
Table 4: Number of positive verbalizations (BD, RF, LP, & UP) in CDI, PDI, & Clean Up for Optimal, Mixed, and Non-optimal groups
DPICS-# Positiveverbalizations CDI PDICUOptimal 38.4 16.8 29.3Mixed 39.5 10.9 13.3Non-optimal 23.2 15.123.6
Figure 1: Number of positive verbalizations (BD, RF, LP, & UP) in CDI, PDI, & Clean Up for Optimal, Mixed, and Non-optimal groups
051015202530354045
Optimal
parenting
Mixed
parenting
Non-optimal
parenting
CDI #
PDI#
CU#
Parenting quality group differences (cont’d.)
Table 5: Mean number of negative verbalizations (IC, DC, & CR) in CDI, PDI, & Clean Up for Optimal, Mixed, and Non-optimal groups
# Negative CDI # PDI# CU#
Optimal 2.7 5.7 9.1Mixed 1.6 6.3 13.2Non-optimal 5.5 7.5 7.2
Figure 2: Mean number of negative (IC, DC, & CR) verbalizations in CDI, PDI, & Clean Up for Optimal, Mixed, and Non-optimal groups
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Optimal parenting Mixed parenting Non-optimal
parenting
CDI
PDI
CU
Question 4: Can we discriminate between types of parents by assessing children’s behavior during the 15 minute DPICS?
Child Responsiveness (Range = 1 – 7; Optimal range= 5 - 7)
• Willing to go along with parent’s ideas
• Engages easily with parent, does not ignore parent’s bids to play
• Happy
• Relaxed
• Willing to let parent be in charge, doesn’t give parent a lot of commands
• Balance between focus on autonomous play and parent’s engagement
• No negative affect apart from possible initial protest to activity change
Figure 3: Children’s responsiveness (EA) to parents by parenting quality in DPICS (Optimal range= 5+)
1
5
Optimal
parenting
Mixed parenting Non-optimal
parenting
CDI
PDI
CU
Reflections of the parenting quality: Assessing child’s behavior from looking at the 15 minute DPICS (cont’d.)
• Clean up performance: – Compliant- cleans up when asked, does not
have to be asked repeatedly to clean up, may protest mildly when initially asked to clean-up
– Compliance with considerable prompting- Cleans up, but gets easily side-tracked and is repeatedly prompted, or tries to distract parent from need to clean up.
– Mostly to completely non-compliant- Does not comply with most requests. May put a few things away, or put toys away then refuse to come back to chair, but predominantly non-compliant.
Figure 4: % of children who clean up when parents are in optimal, mixed, and non-optimal parenting quality groups
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Optimal Mixed Non-optimal
% Clean up
% Clean up withprompts
% Non-comply
Clinical Implications
• Goals of assessment– Better understanding of parents’
generalization of CDI skills to different situations.
– Better understanding of child’s response to parent’s use of power and control in context of their new CDI skills.
– Greater sensitivity to dyads’ strengths and weaknesses.
• Implications for quality of treatment provision
Questions?Comments
Thank You!
top related