Universal prevention with the IY short version

Reedtz, Mørch & Handegård, 2010

Prof. Willy-Tore MørchUniversity of Tromsø, NorwayCardiff March 9th 2011

04/19/232

An RCT from a normal population

• Total of families volunteered=269• 58 children (22%) excluded due to ECBI intensity score > 90% (clinical cut-off)• 22 families (10%) terminated their participation in the initial phase.• Pre-post and 1 yr. Follow-up

• The relation building components of the IY parent program (Meeting 1-6)

04/19/233

RCT from a normal populationparent and child characteristics

• Full time occupation: 61%• Two-parent families: 80%• Bacheor or higher education: 78%

• Children’s age from 2-8, mean age <4• 112 (59%) boys, 77 (41%) girls• Mean ECBI score: 103,3 (SD=16,7) Mean

Norwegian norms 93,0 (SD=23,6) Difference sign: <.001

• No differences between the participants and non-participants (attrition analysis)

04/19/234

Effekter på atferdsproblemer, foreldreferdigheter, foreldres opplevelse av kompetanse

04/19/235

Differanser i Positiv parenting og Harsh diciplin

04/19/236

Årsaker til påmelding

04/19/237

IY in RussiaPreliminary effects from the RCT

• 2008-2009: An RCT with N=86 in Petrozavodsk• Intervention group: N=45, Control group:

N=41• The control group received ”treatment as

usual” (special school).• The intervention group received The Basic

Parent Program

• Russian norms of the ECBI was obtained in 2007.

(urban and rural areas)

04/19/238

Невероятные годы:Родители, дети и учителя -

Программа тренировкиразработана

Каролин Вебстер-Страттон, доктор наук

The Incredible Years Training Series

10/00

04/19/239

The Incredible Years in Russia

04/19/2310

ECBI Intensity score. Pre-post

Significant effect

Eta square = 0.433 is a great effect. Corresponds to Cohens d = 1,58

ANCOVA

04/19/2311

ECBI Problem score. Pre-post

Significant effectEta square = 0.359 is a great effect. Corresponds to Cohens d = 1,41

ANCOVA

04/19/2312

ECBI intensity pre-post-fu

04/19/2313

04/19/2314

1. Over protection

• Time by group effect: P = 0.007• Scale: 0-10

04/19/2315

3. Pandering of child needs (Over satisfaction, spoiling)

• Time by group effect: P < 0.0005• Scale: 0-10

04/19/2316

4. Ignoring of child needs

• Time by group effect: P = 0.075• Scale: 0-5

04/19/2317

6. Insufficiency of demands-duties

• Time by group effect: P < 0.0005• Scale: 0-5

04/19/2318

9. Excessiveness of penalties (sanctions)• Time by group effect: P = 0.002• Scale: 0-5

04/19/2319

10. Minimum of penalties (sanctions)

• Time by group effect: P = 0.08• Scale: 0-5

04/19/2320

11. Instability of parenting style• Time by group effect: P = 0.02• Scale: 0-5

04/19/2321

14. Uncertainty in parent role

• Time by group effect: P < 0.0005• Scale: 0-5

04/19/2322

18. Transition of inter spouse conflict to relationship with child• Time by group effect: P = 0.19• Scale: 0-5

04/19/2323

The Status of IY in Russia and the way ahead

Ultimo 2010: 500 families has received the IYThe Republic of Karelia: 3 citiesMurmansk county, Arkhangelsk county og The Republic

of Komi: 7 cities.

2009: Longlasting collaboration between Norway and Russia about children and crime conviction. Coordinated by The Ministry of childtren, equation beween sexes and inclusion of minorities and The ministry of justise and police matters in Norway. The goals: Exchange of experience and knowledge of prevention of crime and implementation of alternative types penalty to prison for children. The IY is a integrated part of this work as a program documented as effective prevention of juvenile crime (Blueprint).