Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) - Level 2 Seminar Series
Category
Family Support
Child's Age
0-1 years, 1-2 years, 2-3 years, 3-4 years, 4-5 years
Participant
Parents/Guardian
Languages
English, Spanish, French, Other
Brief Description
Introduction to the positive parenting practices and Triple P through a series of seminars for parents who have one or two concerns with their child's behavior or development.
Expected Impact
- Improved ECBI intensity scale scores at post-intervention and 6-month follow-up (p = 0.001)
- Reductions in child behavioral problems measured by the Conners conduct problem scale (p= 0.024)
- Reductions in disrupted parenting practices measured by the PS total score (p = 0.014 on PP analysis and p = 0.021 on ITT analysis)
- Increases in parental confidence dealing with child behaviors measured by the PTC (p = 0.013)
- Greater likelihood of movement from clinical to non-clinical range on ECBI intensity scale and SDQ inattention/hyperactivity subscale
- Improved scores on the SDQ inattention/hyperactivity (p < 0.01) and total difficulties subscales (p < 0.01)
- Improved scored on the PS subscales of laxness (p < 0.01) and verbosity (p < 0.01)
- Lower levels of reactivity and overall dysfunctional parenting
- Reduced interparental conflict measured by the PPC (p < 0.05)
Core Components for Model Fidelity
- Group Sessions: Stand alone sessions for large groups of 20 to 200 parents/caregivers covering the following topics:
- Positive Parenting
- Raising Confident, Competent Children
- Raising Resilient Children
- Materials: Each family will receive a Triple P Seminar Series Tip Sheet corresponding to the seminar they are attending.
Languages Materials are Available in
English, Spanish, French, Other*
*Contact purveyor about additional available languages.
Delivery Mode
In person or virtual through webinar platform
Dosage
90 minutes per seminar session (60 minutes for presentation, 30 minutes for Q&A). There is no minimum dosage as there are similar effects among participants attending all 3 seminars and attending 1 seminar.
Infrastructure for Implementation
Materials: Tip Sheets for each seminar topic (1 per parent/caregiver/family); Facilitator Manual for Selected Triple P; Access to Selected Triple P Seminar Series PowerPoint presentations
Space: Adequate meeting space for in person group sessions, computer and projection if delivered in person. If delivered virtually, a virtual meeting platform. Practitioners receive Seminar Triple P Facilitator Kit, sample parent tip sheets, and access to the Triple P Provider Network.
Staffing Requirements
Staffing requires a Selected Seminar Triple P Accredited practitioner. This practitioner must have a knowledge of child development to be eligible for training. Practitioners are not limited to Triple P delivery. They can implement Triple P alongside other job duties and/or program implementation. It is recommended the staff member have high levels of comfort with large group delivery.
NCPC strongly recommends staff receive training in the Standards of Quality for Family Support and Strengthening. Contact Positive Childhood Alliance North Carolina (PCANC) or National Family Support Network (NFSN) for more information, training, and certification.
Training for Model Fidelity
Practitioners must complete training and accreditation through Triple P America. Training is available in-person or a hybrid option supported by video conference.
The 2 day training includes 1 pre-accreditation day, and a half-day accreditation day. Preparation for the accreditation day requires 4-6 hours of time to prepare for the quiz and competency assessment. It is also strongly recommended that practitioners engage in peer support post training, which can vary in time and/or frequency (usually about an hour a month, but may be more frequent at the beginning).
Contact Information
https://www.triplep.net/glo-en/the-triple-p-system-at-work/the-system-explained/
contact.us@triplep.net
803-451-2278
Sara van Driel, PhD: Community Engagement/Implementation Consultant at Triple P America; sara@triplep.net
Ashley Lindsay: Community Engagement/ Implementation Consultant at Triple P America; ashley.lindsay@triplep.net
Cost Estimates
2023 cost for Level 2 Selected Seminar Open Enrollment is $1,760/person which includes training, pre-accreditation, accreditation, practitioner materials, and access to the Triple P Provider Network. The 2023 cost for a virtual agency-based training for 20 practitioners is $26,475 (which equates to approximately $1,323.75 per person when there are 20 practitioners.)
Smart Start Local Partnerships interested in Triple P training should connect with their local Lead Implementing Agency for North Carolina. If you are unsure of your local contact, please email contact.us@triplep.net. The 2023 cost of parent materials for Seminar Triple P is approximately $2/family/seminar. These costs are just for training and parent materials. Other start up costs depend on the particular agency and practitioners implementing.
Purpose Service Code (PSC)
5505 - Parent Education
Program Identifier (PID)
Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) - Level 2 Seminar Series
Minimal Outputs for NCPC Reporting
FY 24-25:
- Number of parent/guardians participating†
†Select Family Support Programs data collection will include basic demographic data for parent/guardian participants including Race, Ethnicity. Data on interpretation and transportation will be collected when appropriate.
Minimal Outcomes for NCPC Reporting
FY 24-25:
- Increase in positive parenting practices
Minimal Measures for NCPC Reporting
FY 24-25:
- TRIPLE P CLIENT SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE – Level 2 (SEMINAR SERIES)
NCPC Evidence Categorization
Evidence Based- 2 publications. One randomized controlled trial and one feasibility study, both using comparison groups.
Research Summary
The two most recent studies on Triple P Seminar Series (Level 2) include a feasibility study1 and a randomized controlled trial.2 Participants were parents with children ages 0-12 years from Queensland, Australia or Athens, Greece. They were female, married, and middle income with a wide variety of parent education levels and employment statuses. Measures included the Family Background Questionnaire, Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), Parenting Tasks Checklist (PTC), Parenting Scale (PS), Parent Problem Checklist (PPC), Relationship Quality Index (RQI), Depression-Anxiety-Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21), Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI), Conners conduct problem (CP) and anxiety scales, and General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). Results of these studies indicated improvements in ECBI intensity scale scores at post-intervention and 6-month follow-up (p = 0.001), reductions in child behavioral problems measured by the Conners conduct problem scale (p = 0.024), reductions in disrupted parenting practices measured by the PS total score (p = 0.014 on PP analysis and p = 0.021 on ITT analysis), and increases in parental confidence dealing with child behaviors measured by the PTC (p = 0.013). Participants had a greater likelihood of movement from the clinical to non-clinical range on the ECBI intensity scale and SDQ inattention/hyperactivity subscale. They reported improved scores on the SDQ inattention/hyperactivity (p < 0.01) and total difficulties subscales (p < 0.01) as well as improvements on the PS subscales of laxness (p < 0.01) and verbosity (p < 0.01). Participants reported lower levels of reactivity and overall dysfunctional parenting and reduced interparental conflict measured by the PPC (p < 0.05). The feasibility study compared a control group to participants receiving the full intervention (all 3 seminars) and partial/introductory exposure (1 seminar). This study found that there were similar outcomes for participants receiving any exposure to the seminars.
- ^ See Sanders et al. (2009). This feasibility study evaluates the impacts of Triple P Selected Seminar Series. The sample population included 244 parents with children ages 0-12 years (M = 5.5) from Queensland, Australia. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the following conditions: waitlist control (N = 54); introductory exposure/attending one seminar (N = 54); or full exposure/attending all seminars (N = 54). Late enrollees (N = 82) were not randomly assigned to a condition and were able to self-select introductory (31), full exposure (26), or waitlist control conditions (25). Of the 109 participants who completed full data, participants were primarily female (80%), married (77%), spoke English at home (99%), and fell within the Australian median household income bracket (34%). Education levels and employment statuses varied widely but was similar across the three treatment conditions. Participants completed assessments pre- and post-intervention. Measures included the Family Background Questionnaire, Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), Parenting Tasks Checklist (PTC), Parenting Scale (PS), Parent Problem Checklist (PPC), Relationship Quality Index (RQI), and Depression-Anxiety-Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21). The introductory condition completed one seminar while the full exposure condition completed all three seminars in the series. Seminars were delivered 2-3 weeks apart. The waitlist control group received no contact or treatment during the 4-week waitlist period, after which they completed the post-intervention assessments and were allowed to attend the seminars (data not included in the evaluation). At pre-intervention, SDQ scores were in the normal to clinical range on the subscales of conduct problems, peer problems, and inattention/hyperactivity subscales. Participants in the introductory and full exposure conditions scored significantly lower than the waitlist group on the inattention/hyperactivity (p < 0.01) and total difficulties subscales (p < 0.01) at post-intervention. The full exposure group also scored significantly lower on the PS subscales of laxness (p < 0.01) and verbosity (p < 0.01) compared to their peers in the waitlist condition. Both the full exposure and introductory exposure participants reported lower levels of reactivity and overall dysfunctional parenting, but these findings were not significant. Participants in the full exposure group reported lower levels of interparental conflict (p < 0.05) than the waitlist group, measured by the PPC. Additionally, 75% of children in the introductory exposure group moved from the clinical to non-clinical range of the inattention/hyperactivity subscale (p < 0.05), compared with 50% of the full exposure group and 15% of the waitlist group.
- ^ See Foskolos et al. (2023). This randomized controlled trial summarizes findings from a pilot study of the Triple P Seminar Series. The sample population included 124 participants with a child ages 2-12 years living near Athens, Greece. Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention (N = 83) or control (N = 41) groups. Baseline demographic data indicated that participants were primarily mothers in both the control (80%) and intervention groups (87%). Most participants were married (84% intervention and 95% control), ages 31-40 (64% intervention and 53% control), worked full time (64% intervention and 51% control), held a bachelor's degree (60% intervention and 50% control), and were middle income (48% intervention and 38% control). There were more boys in the intervention group (59%) than the control group (41%). Most children were ages 2-5 years in both the control (55%) and intervention (61%) groups. Participants in the intervention group were offered three 90-minute seminars from the Triple P Seminar Series, along with the model's standardized tip sheets. Each seminar was offered twice to provide flexibility for participants' schedules and was delivered 2-4 weeks apart. The control group received a leaflet with general information on child health and development. Assessments were completed at baseline, post-intervention, and at 6-month follow-up. At the follow-up, the control group received copies of the Triple P Seminar Series tip sheets. To mediate the effects of a severe outlier in the data, results were analyzed via intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis using group median scores and compared to a per protocol (PP) analysis. At post-intervention, 75% of the intervention group and 66% of the control group remained. This was reduced to 63% of the intervention group and 66% of the control group at follow-up. Measures included the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI), Conners conduct problem (CP) and anxiety scales, Parenting Scale (PS), Parenting Tasks Checklist (PTC), and General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). At baseline, 31% of children in the intervention group and 22% of the control group scored above the ECBI cut-off for conduct problems. About half of the intervention participants attended all three sessions in the Seminar Series (51%). The ITT analysis showed that, at post-intervention, the treatment group's scores on the ECBI intensity scale had significantly improved from their baseline assessment (p = 0.001). These effects remained significant at the 6-month follow-up (p = 0.029). The PP analysis did not find changes at post-intervention (p = 0.006) or follow-up (p = 0.007). The PP analysis also indicated statistically significant reductions in the behavioral problems of children of intervention participants, measured by the Conners conduct problem scale (p = 0.024). These findings were not mirrored in the ITT analysis. Both the ITT analysis (p = 0.021) and PP analysis (p = 0.014) found statistically significant reductions in disrupted parenting practices, measured by the PS total score. The PP analysis also found statistically significant increases in parental confidence dealing with child behaviors (p = 0.013), as measured by the PTC. These findings were not seen in the ITT analysis, however. The ITT analysis found significant associations between the numbers of seminar sessions attended and both the ECBI intensity scale scores (p = 0.002) and the Conners conduct problem scale (p = 0.016) at post-intervention. At post-intervention, 54% of children of intervention participants and 44% of children in the control group moved from the clinical to non-clinical range on the ECBI intensity scale. By the 6-month follow-up, 65% of intervention children moved from the clinical to non-clinical range while 89% of children in the control group remained in the clinical range on the ECBI intensity scale. This study was limited by the lack of control over the number of seminar sessions attended, as participants were not assigned to a certain number of sessions and some did not attend any sessions. Because resources were limited, the researcher led the analyses and delivered the intervention but blindness was ensured by a research assistant responsible for collecting and deidentifying the data.
Researched Population
- Parents with children ages 0-12 years from Queensland, Australia or Athens, Greece
- Participants were primarily female, married, and middle income
- Wide variety of parent education levels and employment statuses
Foskolos, K., Gardner, F., & Montgomery, P. (2023). Brief Parenting Seminars for Preventing Child Behavioral and Emotional Difficulties: a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 32, 3063-3075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-023-02653-6
Level 2 – Triple P. (n.d.). https://www.triplep.net/glo-en/the-triple-p-system-at-work/the-system-explained/level-2/
Sanders, M., Prior, J., & Ralph, A. (2009). An evaluation of a brief universal seminar series on positive parenting: A feasibility study. Journal of Children's Services, 4(1), 4-20. https://doi.org/10.1108/17466660200900002
Local Partnerships Currently Implementing
Local Partnerships in purple have adopted Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) - Level 2 Seminar Series. Local Partnership contact information can be found here.