does#triple#p#work#with#fostercarers?#helpingfamilieschange.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
1Garland, A. F., Hough, R. L., Landsverk, J. A., & Brown, S. A. (2001). MulB-‐sector of systems of care for youth with mental health needs. Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research, & Prac7ce, 4, 123-‐140. 2Kerker, B. D., & Dore, M. M. (2006). Mental health needs and treatment of foster youth: Barriers and opportuniBes. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 138-‐147. 3Schofield, G., & Beek, M. (2005). Risk and resilience in long-‐term foster care. Bri7sh Journal of Social Work, 35, 1283-‐1301. 4Morgan, J., Robinson, D., & Aldridge, J. (2002). ParenBng stress and externalising child behaviour. Child and Family Social Work, 7, 219-‐225. 5Chamberlain, P., Price, J. M., Reid, J. B., Landsverk, J., Fisher, P. A. & Stoolmiller, M. (2006). Who disrupts from placement in foster and kinship care? Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 409-‐424. 6Newton, R. R., Litrownik, A. J., & Landsverk, J. A. (2000). Children and youth in foster care: Disentangling the relaBonship between problem behaviors and number of placements. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 1363-‐1374. 7Sanders, M. R., Markie-‐Dadds, C., & Turner, K. M. T. (2003). TheoreBcal, scienBfic, and clinical foundaBons of the Triple P – PosiBve ParenBng Program: A populaBon approach to the promoBon of parenBng competence. Paren7ng Research and Prac7ce Monograph, 1, 1-‐24. 8Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and DifficulBes QuesBonnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581-‐586. 9Tarren-‐Sweeney, M. J., (2007). The Assessment Checklist for Children – ACC: A behavioural raBng scale for children in foster, kinship, and residenBal care. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 672-‐691. 10Dadds, M. R., & Powell, M. B. (1991). The relaBonship of interparental conflict and global marital adjustment for parents of opposiBonal children in rural and remote areas. Behaviour Modifica7on, 21, 379-‐408. 11Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marBal quality: A criBcal look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141 – 151. 12Sanders, M. R., & Woolley, M. L. (2005). The relaBonship between maternal self-‐efficacy and parenBng pracBces: ImplicaBons for parent training. Child: Care, Health and Development, 31, 65–73. 13Arnold, D. S., O’Leary, G. S., Wolff, L. S., & Acker, M. M. (1993). The ParenBng Scale: A measure of dysfuncBonal parenBng in discipline situaBons. Psychological Assessment, 5, 137-‐144. 14Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) (2nd Ed). Sydney, NSW: Psychology FoundaBon of Australia.
6. Key Findings
Improved child behaviour
“Hi\ng others (virtually stopped!)”
Increased knowledge “I now feel I have a be`er understanding of
why she behaves the way she does….”
New skills “Gained some great ideas on handling
difficult situa7ons.”
Interac=on with other carers “I found the group sessions very helpful, to
learn from other carers, and take on sugges7ons with others in similar
situa7ons.”
Reassurance “The program gave me confidence that the approach I currently use to manage issues is
OK.”
Too basic “None of my children have very easy problems to
manage so nothing really helped us.”
Repe==ve of other training “I felt that many of the topics discussed were tackled and discussed in other foster carer
training.”
Not relevant to children-‐in-‐care “I didn’t feel it applied to most foster kids.“
More needed on challenging behaviours “Feel I had done all this, was looking for
something for the more extreme behaviours”
• N = 16 (3 male, 13 female). • Age range 30 to 67 years (M = 52.13, SD = 11.19). • Length of Bme as carers ranged from 1 to 30 years (M = 4.47, SD = 6.90). • Number of foster children ranged from 1 to 6 (M = 2.29, SD = 1.35). • Another 9 parBcipants akended the program but were excluded from analysis (n = 2 did not
complete the program, n = 1 did not complete post-‐assessment, n = 6 did not have any foster children aged between 2 and 12 currently in their care).
• Four groups were conducted across Queensland, Australia. • Program was run for 5 consecuBve weeks (3-‐hour group sessions), with the excepBon of
Townsville where the program was facilitated over 2 full days.
• Children-‐in-‐care display a range of emoBonal and behavioural problems, including temper tantrums, aggression, non-‐compliance, sexualised behaviours, and violence and destrucBve behaviour.123
• ParenBng stress has adverse consequences for carers, including negaBve parental behaviour and higher irraBonal beliefs about parenBng.4
• ProblemaBc child behaviours have been linked with increased placement breakdown and instability.56
1. Out-‐of-‐Home Care
• Taking Care Triple P is a promising parenBng program that can assist in the behaviour management and well-‐being of children-‐in-‐care.
• Some carers will undoubtedly require advanced strategies and personalised support for managing complex child behaviours.
• Feedback should be used to make any necessary changes to the program format and content. • An efficacy trial comparing the intervenBon to a control group, and then effecBveness trials exploring outcomes when delivered in community selngs should be conducted.
8. References
C o n t a c t : C l a i r e C h a n d l e r [email protected]
2. Research & Development Cycle
7. Conclusions
DOES TRIPLE P WORK WITH FOSTER CARERS? Taking Care Triple P:
Program Design and Review of Feasibility Trial
Claire Chandler & Jeanie Sheffield The ParenBng and Family Support Centre
School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
The Triple P-‐PosiBve ParenBng Program aims to prevent and manage child emoBonal and behavioural problems by enhancing the knowledge, skills, and confidence of parents. It is based on five core principles, has a strong evidence-‐base, and has been found to be effecBve with many populaBons.7 Taking Care Triple P is for foster carers of children aged 2 to 12 years. It is an 8-‐session program, with foster carers parBcipaBng in 5 group-‐based sessions, followed by 3 weeks of telephone consultaBons. It uses acBve skills training to promote caregiver competence and confidence.
• Session One: Posi=ve Paren=ng • Session Two: Helping Children Develop • Session Three: Managing Misbehaviour
• Session Four: Building Self-‐Esteem & Resilience • Session Five: Planning Ahead
• Session Six: PuZng It All Together 1 • Session Seven: PuZng It All Together 2
• Session Eight: Program Close
This research involved the development and preliminary trial of Taking Care Triple P, a posiBve parenBng program tailored to suit foster carers. Developing a new intervenBon involves progressing from theory building through to finalisaBon of resources. This project took previous research and input from carers to inform the tailoring of the intervenBon to be suitable for foster carers, compleBng the first four steps in the process.
Theory Building
Program Development
Program Design Pilot TesBng Efficacy Trials EffecBveness
Trials Resource
Development
Claire Louise Chandler
Matthew R. Sanders
TAKING CARE TRIPLE P
FOR OUT-OF-HOME CARE PROVIDERS
WORKBOOK FOR USE WITH CHILDREN UP TO 12 YEARS
POSITIVE PARENTING SOLUTIONS
Qualita=ve Feedback from Carers
4. Par=cipants & Procedure
• Strength and Difficul7es Ques7onnaire8: measuring prosocial and difficult behaviours. • Assessment Checklist for Children9: measuring behaviours, emoBonal states, and manners of relaBng to others onen manifested by children-‐in-‐care.
• Parent Problem Checklist10: measuring inter-‐parental conflict over child rearing. • Rela7onship Quality Index11: index of marital or relaBonship quality and saBsfacBon. • Paren7ng Tasks Checklist12: used to assess task specific self-‐efficacy. • Paren7ng Scale13: measures dysfuncBonal discipline styles. • Depression and Anxiety Stress Scale14: measures depression, anxiety, and stress.
3. What is Taking Care Triple P?
Assessment Measure Pre M(SD) Post M(SD) df t-‐score Child Behaviour SDQ Total 18.13 (8.11) 13.14 (5.76) 13 2.53* ACC Total 39.56 (28.19) 26.93 (20.17) 13 2.34* Parent’s Rela;onship Conflict in ParenBng 1.00 (1.00) 1.11 (0.60) 8 -‐.56 RelaBonship SaBsfacBon 41.78 (5.65) 43.78 (2.64) 8 -‐1.35 Confidence in Paren;ng Selng Self-‐Efficacy 90.83 (9.06) 88.59 (16.15) 15 .89 Behavioural Self-‐Efficacy 84.84 (19.35) 88.28 (18.93) 15 -‐.96 Paren;ng Style Laxness 2.39 (0.70) 2.08 (0.67) 15 1.66 Over reacBvity 2.05 (0.54) 2.05 (0.76) 15 -‐.01 Verbosity 3.51 (0.87) 2.99 (0.59) 15 2.36* Total Score 2.61 (0.50) 2.32 (0.53) 15 2.08* Psychological Well-‐Being Depression 4.38 (6.33) 2.07 (3.79) 14 1.48 Anxiety 1.75 (5.46) 0.33 (0.72) 14 1.04 Stress 7.25 (6.49) 4.40 (4.55) 14 1.93†
Table 1. Means and Standard Devia;ons and Results of t-‐tests for Pre-‐ and Post-‐ Assessment Measures Pre-‐Assessment
• Pre-‐assessment measures indicated a relaBvely low scoring data-‐set, with only the pre-‐assessment scores for child behaviour (both SDQ & ACC) were considered to be in the Clinical Range.
Post-‐Assessment • A series of t-‐tests
revealed significant differences between pre-‐ and post-‐assessment on both measures of child behaviour, overall parenBng style, and verbosity.
†p < .10, *p<.05
5. Assessment Measures