The effects of level 2 Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) on parental use of physical punishment, non-physical forms of punishment, and non-punitive parenting responses
Loading...
Date
2016
Authors
Gonzalez, Miriam
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Child maltreatment is a significant public health issue. Reducing prevalence of coercive parenting is one means to reducing risk of maltreatment and negative developmental outcomes for children. Parental use of physical punishment has been associated with adverse consequences in childhood and adulthood. Parent education programs, such as the Positive Parenting Program (Triple P), that promote alternatives to using physical punishment with children may reduce coercive parenting. In this study, parental use of physical punishment, non-physical forms of punishment, and non-punitive parenting responses were compared before and after parents attended Level 2 Triple P parent education seminars. International Parenting Survey-Canada (IPS-C) data were used to examine Belsky’s (1984) theoretical proposition that parental factors are the strongest predictor of parenting behaviour followed by contextual and child factors. Independent samples t-tests, Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests, and a series of regression models were used to examine the study’s hypotheses. A total of 27 parents attended the Triple P sessions. Parental use of physical punishment decreased on only one of the four physical punishment items (shaking) post- intervention. Although there were no significant differences in overall use of non-physical forms of punishment and non-punitive parenting strategies pre and post-intervention, there were significant increases in frequency of use of individual scale items pre- to post-intervention. IPS-C sample of 2,340 Canadian parents was used to examine Belsky’s postulate. Results were mixed and provided partial support for the postulate. Child behaviour problems, participation in parent education programs, parent employment status, and parent age predicted coercive parenting. Findings highlight the need to further examine these hypotheses.
Description
Keywords
Parenting, Physical punishment, Parental responses, Positive Parenting Program