| 1. |
- Coren, Esther, et al.
(author)
-
Parent training support for intellectually disabled parents
- 2010
-
In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. - 1469-493X. ; :6, s. CD007987-
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Intellectual disability may impact on an individual's capacity to parent a child effectively. Research suggests that the number of intellectually disabled people with children is increasing. Children of parents with intellectual disabilities may be at increased risk of neglectful care which could lead to health, developmental and behavioural problems, or increased risk of intellectual disability.However, there is some indication that some parents with intellectual disabilities are able to provide adequate child care if they are given appropriate training and support to do so. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of parent training interventions to support the parenting of parents with intellectual disabilities SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA, Sociological Abstracts, Dissertation Abstracts International, MetaRegister of Controlled Trials, and ZETOC. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing parent training interventions for parents with intellectual disabilities with usual care or with a control group. Outcomes of interest were: the attainment of parenting skills specific to the intervention, safe home practices and the understanding of child health. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and undertook data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials met the inclusion criteria for this review but no meta-analysis was possible. One study reported improved maternal-child interaction following group parent training compared with the control group. The second study reported some improvements in parents knowledge of life threatening emergencies, ability to recognise dangers and identify precautions and smaller improvements in their ability to implement precautions, use medicines safely and recognise child illness and symptoms. The third study reported improvement in child care and safety skills following the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some risk of bias in the included studies, with limited information available to assess possible bias and to fully assess the findings of one included study. Whilst the evidence presented here does seem promising with regard to the ability of such interventions to improve parenting knowledge and skill in this population, there is a need for larger RCTs of interventions before conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of parent training for this group of parents.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ebersole, Charles R., et al.
(author)
-
Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability
- 2020
-
In: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. - : Sage. - 2515-2467 .- 2515-2459. ; 3:3, s. 309-331
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3-9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276-3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Delta r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00-.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19-.50).
|
|
