Skip to content
EIF Guidebook
Menu
Level 4 Group Triple P

Level 4 Group Triple P

Evidence rating
3
Cost rating
1
Reviews: Foundations for Life, July 2016; November 2019

Note on provider involvement: This provider has agreed to EIF’s terms of reference, and the assessment has been conducted and published with the full cooperation of the programme provider.

Level 4 Group Triple P is a targeted-indicated intervention for parents with a child between 0 and 12 years old who have concerns about their child’s behaviour.

Groups of up to 12 parents attend sessions over eight weeks delivered by a single trained and supervised clinical psychologist. These sessions include five two-hour group meetings, as well as three individual telephone consultations lasting 15 to 30 minutes.

Parents learn 17 different strategies for improving their children’s competencies and discouraging unwanted child behaviour. Role play, homework exercises and discussions involving video-taped examples of effective parenting strategies are used to help parents learn methods for dealing with unwanted child behaviour and supporting their child’s emotional needs.

EIF Programme Assessment

Evidence rating
3

Level 4 Group Triple P has evidence of a short-term positive impact on child outcomes from at least one rigorous evaluation.

What does the evidence rating mean?

Level 3 indicates evidence of efficacy. This means the programme can be described as evidence-based: it has evidence from at least one rigorously conducted RCT or QED demonstrating a statistically significant positive impact on at least one child outcome.

This programme does not receive a rating of 4 as it has not yet replicated its results in another rigorously conducted study, where at least one study indicates long-term impacts, and at least one uses measures independent of study participants. 

What does the plus mean?

The plus rating indicates that this programme has evidence from at least one level 3 study, along with evidence from other studies rated 2 or better.

Whilst this Guidebook page describes Level 4 Group Triple P when implemented on a targeted basis (with children where there are concerns about their behaviour), it is also possible to deliver this programme on a universal basis. Evaluations investigating the impact of the programme when delivered universally have identified both positive and more equivocal findings. For instance, an RCT assessing the universal programme implemented in preschools in Germany (Heinrichs et al., 2017) provides preliminary evidence of positive impact on child behaviour. Another implementation conducted in primary schools in Switzerland (Bodenmann et al., 2008) also provides preliminary evidence of positive impact on child behaviour, yet, another analysis of this trial (Eisner et al., 2012) suggests that for those completing the full programme (i.e. attending all 5 sessions) there was no effect.

Cost rating
1

A rating of 1 indicates that a programme has a low cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.

Child outcomes

According to the best available evidence for this programme's impact, it can achieve the following positive outcomes for children:

Supporting children's mental health and wellbeing

based on
1.31-point improvement on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Emotional Symptoms Scale)
Improvement index: +23
This means we would expect the average participant in the comparison group who did not receive the intervention (ie, someone for whom 50% of their peers have better outcomes and 50% have worse outcomes), to improve to the point where they would have better outcomes than 73% and worse outcomes than 27% of their peers, if they had received the intervention.
Immediately after the intervention

Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour

based on
2.21-point improvement on the Parent Daily Report
Improvement index: +21
This means we would expect the average participant in the comparison group who did not receive the intervention (ie, someone for whom 50% of their peers have better outcomes and 50% have worse outcomes), to improve to the point where they would have better outcomes than 71% and worse outcomes than 29% of their peers, if they had received the intervention.
Immediately after the intervention
based on
8.82-point improvement on the Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory (Problem Scale)
Improvement index: +36
This means we would expect the average participant in the comparison group who did not receive the intervention (ie, someone for whom 50% of their peers have better outcomes and 50% have worse outcomes), to improve to the point where they would have better outcomes than 86% and worse outcomes than 14% of their peers, if they had received the intervention.
Immediately after the intervention
based on
4.47-point improvement on the Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory (Problem Scale)
Improvement index: +27
This means we would expect the average participant in the comparison group who did not receive the intervention (ie, someone for whom 50% of their peers have better outcomes and 50% have worse outcomes), to improve to the point where they would have better outcomes than 77% and worse outcomes than 23% of their peers, if they had received the intervention.
Immediately after the intervention
based on
29.17-point improvement on the Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory (Intensity Scale)
Improvement index: +34
This means we would expect the average participant in the comparison group who did not receive the intervention (ie, someone for whom 50% of their peers have better outcomes and 50% have worse outcomes), to improve to the point where they would have better outcomes than 84% and worse outcomes than 16% of their peers, if they had received the intervention.
Immediately after the intervention
based on
9.89-point improvement on the Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory (Intensity Scale)
Improvement index: +17
This means we would expect the average participant in the comparison group who did not receive the intervention (ie, someone for whom 50% of their peers have better outcomes and 50% have worse outcomes), to improve to the point where they would have better outcomes than 67% and worse outcomes than 33% of their peers, if they had received the intervention.
Immediately after the intervention
based on
1.23-point improvement on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Conduct Scale)
Improvement index: +27
This means we would expect the average participant in the comparison group who did not receive the intervention (ie, someone for whom 50% of their peers have better outcomes and 50% have worse outcomes), to improve to the point where they would have better outcomes than 77% and worse outcomes than 23% of their peers, if they had received the intervention.
Immediately after the intervention
based on
1.32-point improvement on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Hyperactivity Scale)
Improvement index: +23
This means we would expect the average participant in the comparison group who did not receive the intervention (ie, someone for whom 50% of their peers have better outcomes and 50% have worse outcomes), to improve to the point where they would have better outcomes than 73% and worse outcomes than 27% of their peers, if they had received the intervention.
Immediately after the intervention
based on
1.07-point improvement on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Peer Problem Scale)
Improvement index: +24
This means we would expect the average participant in the comparison group who did not receive the intervention (ie, someone for whom 50% of their peers have better outcomes and 50% have worse outcomes), to improve to the point where they would have better outcomes than 74% and worse outcomes than 26% of their peers, if they had received the intervention.
Immediately after the intervention

This programme also has evidence of supporting positive outcomes for couples, parents or families that may be relevant to a commissioning decision. Please see About the evidence for more detail.

Level 4 Group Triple P

Key programme characteristics

Who is it for?

The best available evidence for this programme relates to the following age-groups:

  • Infants
  • Toddlers
  • Preschool
  • Primary school

How is it delivered?

The best available evidence for this programme relates to implementation through these delivery models:

  • Group

Where is it delivered?

The best available evidence for this programme relates to its implementation in these settings:

  • Children's centre or early-years setting
  • Out-patient health setting

The programme may also be delivered in these settings:

  • Primary school
  • Community centre

How is it targeted?

The best available evidence for this programme relates to its implementation as:

  • Targeted indicated

Where has it been implemented?

Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, England, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Romania, Scotland, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, Wales

UK provision

This programme has been implemented in the UK.

UK evaluation

This programme’s best evidence does not include evaluation conducted in the UK.

Spotlight sets

EIF includes this programme in the following Spotlight sets:

  • Improving interparental relationships
  • Parenting programmes with violence reduction outcomes
  • Programmes for children with recognised or possible special education needs
Level 4 Group Triple P

About the programme

What happens during delivery?

How is it delivered?
  • Level 4 Group Triple P is delivered by a Triple P practitioner in five sessions of approximately two hours’ duration to groups of up to 12 families. An additional three sessions (between 15 and 30 minutes each) are delivered to individual families via telephone. 
What happens during the intervention?
  • Parents learn 17 different strategies for improving their children’s competencies and discouraging unwanted child behaviour.
  • Learning is supported through role play exercises, homework exercises and group discussions involving video-taped examples of effective parenting strategies.

What are the implementation requirements?

Who can deliver it?
  • The practitioner who delivers this programme is a Triple P practitioner, who can come from a range of professions (eg family support worker) with recommended minimum QCF-4/5 level qualifications.
What are the training requirements?

The practitioner has three days of programme training. This includes one day of pre-accreditation, and a half-day accreditation workshop (accreditation workshops are held over two days; practitioners attend in groups of five). Booster training of practitioners is not required.

How are the practitioners supervised?
  • It is recommended that practitioners are supervised by one host-agency supervisor with QCF-7/8 level qualifications, with no required programme training. 
What are the systems for maintaining fidelity?
  • Accreditation process
  • Training manual 
  • Supervision
  • Fidelity monitoring
Is there a licensing requirement?

There is no licence required to run this programme.

How does it work? (Theory of Change)

How does it work?
  • Triple P is based on the idea that parents often unintentionally perpetuate unwanted child behaviour through ineffective parenting strategies.
  • Triple P helps parents replace ineffective parenting strategies with effective methods for encouraging positive child behaviour.
  • In the short term, parents learn more effective strategies for managing their child’s behaviour and the child’s behaviour improves.
  • In the longer term, children should have greater self-regulatory skills and self-confidence and do better in school.
  • It is also expected that children will be less likely to have behavioural problems and/or engage in antisocial behaviour.
Intended outcomes

Supporting children's mental health and wellbeing
Preventing child maltreatment
Enhancing school achievement & employment
Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour

Contact details

Level 4 Group Triple P

About the evidence

Triple P (Level 4) Group’s most rigorous evidence comes from two RCTs which were conducted in Hong Kong. 

These studies identified statistically significant positive impact on a number of child and parent outcomes.

This programme has evidence from at least one rigorously conducted RCT along with evidence from an additional comparison group study.  Consequently, the programme receives a 3+ rating overall.

Study 1

Citation: Leung et al. (2003)
Design: RCT
Country: Hong Kong
Sample: 91 middle-class families living in Hong Kong
Timing: Post-test
Child outcomes: Reduced emotional problems
Reduced behaviour problems
Reduced frequency of disruptive behaviour
Reduced intensity of disruptive behaviour
Reduced conduct problems
Reduced hyperactivity problems
Reduced peer problems
Other outcomes: Improved parenting
Increased self-efficacy
Improved relationship satisfaction
Study rating: 3

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.

Available at
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14979223

Study design and sample

The first study is a rigorously conducted RCT.  

This study involved random assignment of children to a Triple P treatment group and a waitlist control group. 

This study was conducted in Hong Kong, with a sample of 91 middle-class families with a child between the ages of three and seven.

Measures

Child problem behaviours were measured using the Parent Daily Report (parent report). Child disruptive behaviours and intensity were measured using the Eyberg Child Behavior Checklist (parent report). Child prosocial and difficult behaviours were measured using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (parent report).

Parental dysfunctional discipline styles (laxness, overreactivity, verbosity) were measured using the Parenting Scale (parent report). Parental views of their competence as parents and satisfaction with their parenting role were measured using the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (parent report). Conflict between partners over childrearing were measured using the Parent Problem Checklist (parent report). Relationship quality and satisfaction were measured using the Relationship Quality Index (parent report).

Findings

This study identified statistically significant positive impact on a number of child and parent outcomes.

Child outcomes include:

  • Reduced behaviour problems
  • Reduced frequency of disruptive behaviour
  • Reduced intensity of disruptive behaviour
  • Reduced conduct problems
  • Reduced hyperactivity problems
  • Reduced peer problems
  • Reduced emotional problems
More Less about study 1

Study 2

Citation: Chung et al. (2015)
Design: RCT
Country: Hong Kong
Sample: 91 middle-class families living in Hong Kong
Timing: Post-test
Child outcomes: Reduced frequency of disruptive behaviour
Reduced intensity of disruptive behaviour
Other outcomes: None measured
Study rating: 3

Chung, S., Leung, C., & Sanders, M. R. (2015). The Triple P – Positive Parenting Program: The effectiveness of group Triple P and brief parent discussion group in school settings in Hong Kong. Journal of Children’s Services, 10, 1-14.

Available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JCS-08-2014-0039

Study design and sample

The second study is a rigorously conducted RCT.  

This study involved random assignment of children to a Triple P (Level 4) Group, Discussion Group Triple P (a different Triple P intervention), or a waitlist control group. 

This study was conducted in Hong Kong, with a sample of  91 middle-class families with a child between the ages of three and seven.

Measures

Child disruptive behaviours and intensity were measured using the Eyberg Child Behavior Checklist (parent report). 

Parental stress was measured using the Chinese Parental Stress Scale (parent report).

Findings

This study identified statistically significant positive impact on a number of child and parent outcomes.

Child outcomes include:

  • Reduced frequency of disruptive behaviour
  • Reduced intensity of disruptive behaviour
More Less about study 2

Other studies

The following studies were identified for this programme but did not count towards the programme's overall evidence rating. A programme receives the same rating as its most robust study or studies.

Aghebati, A., Gharraee, B., Hakim Shoshtari, M., & Gohari, M. R. (2014). Triple P-Positive Parenting Program for mothers of ADHD children. Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci, 8(1), 59-65.

Ashori, M., Afrooz, G., Arjmandnia, A., Pourmohamadreza-Tajrishi, M., & Ghobri-Bonab, B. (2015). The Effectiveness of Group Positive Parenting Program (Triple-P) on the Mother-Child Relationships With Intellectual Disability. Iran J Public Health, 44(2), 290-291. 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. doi:10.1111/ap.12053

Averdijk, M., Zirk-Sadowski, J., Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M. (2016). Long-term effects of two childhood psychosocial interventions on adolescent delinquency, substance use, and antisocial behavior: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology. doi:10.1007/s11292-015-9249-4

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. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2008.01.001

Cann, W., Rogers, H., & Matthews, J. (2003). Family Intervention Services program evaluation: A brief report on initial outcomes for families. Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 2(3). doi:10.5172/jamh.2.3.208

Chan, S., Leung, C., & Sanders, M. R. (2016). A randomised controlled trial comparing the effects of directive and non-directive parenting programmes as a universal prevention programme. J Child Serv, 11, 38-53. doi:10.1108/JCS-08-2014-0038

Cina, A., Ledermann, T., Meyer, J., Gabriel, B., & Bodenmann, G. (2004). Triple P in der Schweiz: Zufriedenheit, Akzeptanz und Wirksamkeit (No. 162) [Triple P in Switzerland: Satisfaction, acceptance, and effectiveness]. Retrieved from Institute for Family Research and Counseling, University of Fribourg, Switzerland

Crisante, L., & Ng, S. (2003). Implementation and process issues in using Group Triple P with Chinese parents: Preliminary findings. Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 2(3). doi:10.5172/jamh.2.3.226

de Graaf, I., Haverman, M., Onrust, S., & Tavecchio, L. (2009). Improving parenting and its impact on parental psychopathology: Trial of the Triple P Positive Parenting Program. Dean, C., Myors, K., & Evans, E. (2003). Community-wide implementation of a parenting program: The South East Sydney Positive Parenting Project. Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 2(3). doi:10.5172/jamh.2.3.179

Doyle, O., Delaney, L., O’Farrelly, C., Fitzpatrick, N., & Daly, M. (2017). Can Early Intervention Improve Maternal Well-Being? Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial. PLoS ONE, 12, e0169829. doi:0.1371/journal.pone.0169829 - This reference refers to a randomised control trial, conducted in Ireland.

Eichelberger, I., Pluck, J., Hanish, C., Hautmann, C., Janen, N., & Dopfner, M. (2010). Effekte universeller Pravention mit dem Gruppenformat des Eltern-trainings Triple P auf das kindliche Problemverhalten, das elterliche Erziehungsverhalten und die psychische Belastung der Eltern. Zeitschrift fuer Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 39(1), 24-32. 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. Eisner, M., Ribeaud, D., Juenger, R., & Meidert, U. (2007). Die umsetzung von Triple P. [The implementation of Triple P] Fruehpraevention von Gewalt und Aggression: Ergebnisse des Zuercher Praeventions- und Interventionsprojektes an Schulen. [Early prevention of violence and aggression. Results from the Zurich prevention and intervention project at schools]. Zuerich: Ruegger Verlag

Fawley-King, K., Trask, E., Calderon, N. E., Aarons, G. A., & Garland, A. F. (2014). Implementation of an evidence-based parenting programme with a Latina population: Feasibility and preliminary outcomes. J Child Serv, 9(4), 295-306. doi:10.1108/JCS-04-2014-0024

Fives, A., Pursell, L., Heary, C., Nic Gabhainn, S., & Canavan, J. (2014). Evaluation of the Triple P programme in Longford and Westmeath. Retrieved from Athlone Frank, T. J., Keown, L. J., & Sanders, M. R. (2015). Enhancing father engagement and intraparental teamwork in an evidence-based parenting intervention: A randomized controlled trial of outcomes and processess. Behaviour Therapy. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2015.05.008

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. doi:10.1007/s10826-011-9448-1

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. doi:10.1375/bech.2005.22.2.71

Glazemakers, I. (2012). A population health approach to parenting support: Disseminating the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in the province of Antwerp. ((Unpublished doctoral thesis)), Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerp, Belgium Glazemakers, I., & Deboutte, D. (2013). Modifying the 'Positive Parenting Program' for parents with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. doi:doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01566

Golley, R. K., Magarey, A. M., Baur, L. A., Steinbeck, K. S., & Daniels, L. A. (2007). Twelve-month effectiveness of a parent-led, family-focused weight-management program for prepubertal children: A randomized, control trial. Pediatrics, 119(3), 517-525. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-1746

Guo, M. (2015). An evaluation of the Triple P - Positive Parenting Program with Chinese parents in mainland China with a look into the effects on children’s academic outcomes. The University of Queensland. 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 & Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4(1-14). Hedges, S. (2014). Jewish Family Service Positive Parenting Program Evaluation Report Fiscal Year 2013-2014.

Heinrichs, N., Hahlweg, K., Bertram, H., Kuschel, A., Naumann, S., & Harstick, S. (2006). Die langfristige Wirksamkeit eines Elterntrainings zur universellen Praevention kindlicher Verhaltensstoerungen: Ergebnisse aus Sicht der Muetter und Vaeter [Long term effectiveness of a parent training for universal prevention of child behavior disorders]. Zeitschrift fuer Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 35, 72-86 Heinrichs, N., Hahlweg, K., Naumann, S., Kuschel, A., Bertram, H., & Stander, D. (2009). Universelle prävention kindlicher verhaltensstörungen mithilfe einer elternzentrierten maßnahme: Ergebnisse drei Jahre nach teilnahme. / Universal prevention of child behavior problems with a parent training. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie: Forschung und Praxis, 38(2), 79-88 Heinrichs, N., & Jensen-Doss, A. (2010). The effects of incentives on families' long-term outcome in a parenting program. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39(5), 705-712. doi:10.1080/15374416.2010.501290

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. doi:10.1007/s11121-012-0358-2

Heinrichs, N., Kruger, S., & Guse, U. (2006). Der Einfluss von Anreizen auf die Rekrutierung von Eltern und auf die Effektivitaet eines praeventiven Elterntrainings [The effects of incentives on recruitment rates of parents and the effectiveness of a preventative parent training]. Zeitschrift fuer Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 35, 97-108 Houlding, C., Schmidt, F., Stern, S. B., Jamieson, J., & Borg, D. (2012). The perceived impact and acceptability of group triple P positive parenting program for aboriginal parents in Canada. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(12), 2287-2294. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.08.001

Ireland, J. L., Sanders, M. R., & Markie-Dadds, C. (2003). The impact of parent training on marital functioning: A comparison of two group versions of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program for parents of children with early-onset conduct problems. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 31(2), 127-142. doi:10.1017/s1352465803002017

Kelch-Oliver, K., & Smith, C. O. (2015). Using an evidence-based parenting intervention with African American Parents. The Family Journal: Counselling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 23, 26-32. doi:10.1177/1066480714555697

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. Ledermann, T., Cina, A., Meyer, J., Gabriel, B., & Bodenmann, G. (2004). Die Wirksamkeit zweier Praeventionsprogramme zur Verbesserung elterlicher Kompetenzen und kindlichen Befindens (No. 163) [The effectiveness of two prevention program for the improvement of parental competencies and child well-being. Retrieved from Switzerland

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, 976-984.

Leung, C., Sanders, M. R., Ip, F., & Lau, J. (2006). Implementation of Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in Hong Kong: Predictors of programme completion and clinical outcomes. Journal of Children’s Services, 1(2), 4-17.

Lindsay, G., & Strand, S. (2013). Evaluation of the national roll-out of parenting programmes across England: the parenting early intervention programme (PEIP). BMC Public Health, 13(1), 972. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-972

Lindsay, G., Strand, S., & Davis, H. (2011). A comparison of the effectiveness of three parenting programmes in improving parenting skills, parent mental-well being and children's behaviour when implemented on a large scale in community settings in 18 English local authorities: the parenting early intervention pathfinder (PEIP). BMC Public Health, 11, 962.

Little, M., Berry, V., Morpeth, L., Blower, S., Axford, N., Taylor, R., . . . Tobin, K. (2012). The impact of three evidence-based programmes delivered in public systems in Birmingham, UK. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 6(2), 260-272. doi:0070-ijcv-2012293

Magarey, A. M., Perry, R. A., Baur, L. A., Steinbeck, K. S., Sawyer, M., Hills, A. P., . . . Daniels, L. A. (2011). A parent-led family-focused treatment program for overweight children aged 5 to 9 years: The PEACH RCT. Pediatrics, 127(2), 214-222. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-1432

Malti, T., Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M. (2011). The effectiveness of two universal preventive interventions in reducing children's externalizing behavior: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(5), 677-692. Marryat, L., Thompson, L., Barry, S., McGranachan, M., Sim, F., White, J., Wilson, P. (2014). Parenting Support Framework Evaluation: Year 1 Report. Masters, G., Gaven, S., Pennington, A., & Askew, L. (2011). Evaluation of the Implementation of Triple P in NSW. (Unpublished report). 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. doi:10.1375/bech.24.4.205

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. doi:10.1037/a0018181

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). doi:10.5172/jamh.2.3.144

McTaggart, P., & Sanders, M. R. (2005). The transition to school project: A controlled evaluation of a universal population trial of the Triple P Positive Parenting Program. Unpublished manuscript.

Moharreri, F., Shahrivar, Z., Tehrani-doost, M., & Mahmoudi-Gharaei, J. (2008). Efficacy of the Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) for parents of children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry, 3, 59-63

Naumann, S., Kuschel, A., Bertram, H., Heinrichs, N., & Hahlweg, K. (2007). Förderung der elternkompetenz durch Triple P-Elternrainings. / Promotion of parental competence with Triple P. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 56(8), 676-690 Noorbakhsh, S., Zeinodini, Z., & Rahgozar, F. (2014). Positive Parenting Program (3P) Can Reduce Depression, Anxiety, and Stress of Mothers Who Have Children with ADHD. International Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 1

Onrust, S., de Graaf, I., & van der Linden, D. (2012). De meerwaarde van Triple P: Resultaten van een gerandomiseerde effectstudie van de Triple P gezinsinterventie bij gezinnen met meervoudige problematiek [The added value of Triple P: Results of a randomized clinical trial of the Triple P family intervention with families with multiple problems].Kind en Adolescent [Child and Adolescent], 33(2), 60-74. doi:10.1007/s12453-012-0008-2

Penthin, R., Schrader, C., & Mildebrandt, N. (2005). Erfahrungen mit der deutschen Version des Triple P-Elterntrainings bei Familien mit und ohne ADHS-Problematik [Experiences with the German version of Triple P parent training with families with and without ADHS problems]. Zeitschrift fuer Heilpaedigogik, 5(186-192) Pouretemad, H., Khooshabi, K., Roshanbin, M., & Jadidi, M. (2009). The effectiveness of Group Positive Parenting Program on parental stress of mothers of children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Archives of Iranian Medicine, 12(1), 60-68 Prinz, R. J., Sanders, M. R., Shapiro, C. J., Whitaker, D. J., & Lutzker, J. R. (2009). Population-based prevention of child maltreatment: The U.S. Triple P system population trial. Prevention Science, 10(1), 1-12. doi:10.1007/s11121-009-0123-3

Propp, O., Müller, M., & Kliem, S. (2013). Erziehungstraining für eltern mit einer psychischen erkrankung—Eine pilotstudie. [Educational skills training for parents with mental illness.]. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie: Forschung und Praxis, 42(2), 118-126. doi:10.1026/1616-3443/a000194

Reese, R. J., Slone, N. C., Soares, N., & Sprang, R. (2012). Telehealth for underserved families: an evidence-based parenting program. Psychological Services, 9(3), 320-322. doi:10.1037/a0026193

Reese, R. J., Slone, N. C., Soares, N., & Sprang, R. (2015). Using telepsychology to provide a group parenting program: A preliminary evaluation of effectiveness. Psychological Services, Advance online publishing. doi:org/10.1037/ser0000018

Rivers, A., & Kerns, S. E. U. (2009). Triple P evaluation and final report. Retrieved from Thurston-Mason County Rogers, H., Cann, W., Cameron, D., Littlefield, L., & Lagioia, V. (2003). Evaluation of the Family Intervention Service for children presenting with characteristics associated with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 2(3). doi:10.5172/jamh.2.3.216

Salmon, K., Dittman, C. K., Sanders, M. R., Burson, R., & Hammington, J. (2014). Does adding an emotion component enhance the Triple P−Positive Parenting Program? Journal of Family Psychology, 28(2), 244-252. doi:10.1037/a0035997

Sanders, M. R., Ralph, A., Sofronoff, K., Gardiner, P., Thompson, R., Dwyer, S. B., & Bidwell, K. (2008). Every family: A population approach to reducing behavioral and emotional problems in children making the transition to school. Journal of Primary Prevention, 29(3), 197-222. doi:10.1007/s10935-008-0139-7

Sanders, M. R., Ralph, A., Thompson, R., Sofronoff, K., Gardiner, P., Bidwell, K., & Dwyer, S. B. (2005). Every Family: A public health approach to promoting children’s wellbeing. Retrieved from Brisbane, Australia

Schmidt, F. (2012). Effectiveness of Triple P services at the Children's Centre Thunder Bay: Final Report for Years 2007 to 2011. Retrieved from Thunder Bay, Ontario Schmidt, F., Chomycz, S., Houlding, C., Kruse, A., & Franks, J. (2014). The association between therapeutic alliance and treatment outcomes in a group triple p intervention. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(8), 1337-1350. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9792-4

Smith, G. (2014). A 15 Year Follow-Up of the WA Triple P Trial.

Tellegen, C. L., & Johnston, E. (2016). A Service-Based Evaluation of the Effectiveness of an All-Day Group Triple P-Positive Parenting Program. Journal of Child and Family Studies. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0630-3

Tully, L. A., & Hunt, C. (2016). A randomized controlled trial of a brief versus standard group parenting program for toddler aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 9999, 1-13. doi:10.1002/ab.21689

Wakimizu, R., & Fujioka, H. (2015). Strengthening positive parenting through a 2-month intervention in a local city in Japan: evaluating parental efficacy, family adjustment, and family empowerment. European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare, 3 Wakimizu, R., Fujioka, H., Iejima, A., & Miyamoto, S. (2014). Effectiveness of the group-based positive parenting program with Japanese families raising a child with developmental disabilities: A longitudinal study. Journal of Psychological Abnormalities in Children, 3, 1-9. doi:10.4172/2329-9525.1000113

Winter, L., Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2011). The effect of behavioral family intervention on knowldege of effective parenting strategies. Journal of Child and Family Studies. doi:10.1007/s10826-011-9548-y

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

Published April 2024

Continued use of this site indicates that you accept our cookie policy. Find out more about how we use cookies