Assessment of Parent-Child Interaction Is Important With Infants in Rehabilitation and Can Use High-Tech or Low-Tech Methods

2019 ◽  
Vol 99 (6) ◽  
pp. 658-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacey C Dusing ◽  
Emily C Marcinowski ◽  
Nelci A C F Rocha ◽  
Tanya Tripathi ◽  
Shaaron E Brown
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Future Research ◽  
High Tech ◽  
Motor Impairments ◽  
Early Assessment ◽  
High Resource ◽  
Child Interaction ◽  
Parent Child Interaction ◽  
Social Engagements ◽  
Parent Child

Abstract Parents are their infant's first teachers and play a very important role in early development. Early intervention strives to enhance infant participation in the family, and regulations require the engagement of families in assessment and intervention. Infants born preterm or with motor impairments demonstrate altered social engagements that can influence parent-child interaction and the efficacy of therapy services. However, in research focused on the efficacy of interventions or in clinical practice, therapists rarely assess or report on the quality of parent-infant interaction. Understanding these interactions can help determine what perceptual motor opportunities parents provide that can enhance learning. This Perspective article will: (1) present evidence on the need for early assessment and ongoing measurement of parent-infant interaction; (2) describe an example of each of 3 methods for assessment of parent-child interaction—low-tech, low-resource (Dyadic Mutuality Code), low-tech, high-resource (Parent Children Early Relational Assessment), and high-tech, high-resource (customized behavioral coding); (3) compare 3 approaches theoretically highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each assessment; and (4) reflect on the challenges and value of adding these measures to future research on the efficacy of interventions and clinical practice.

scholarly journals Barriers to Clinician Implementation of Parent–Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) in New Zealand and Australia: What Role for Time-Out?

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (24) ◽  
pp. 13116
Author(s):  
Melanie J. Woodfield ◽  
Tania Cargo ◽  
Sally N. Merry ◽  
Sarah E. Hetrick
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Intervention Component ◽  
Parent Child Interaction Therapy ◽  
Child Interaction ◽  
Time Out ◽  
Parent Child Interaction ◽  
Interaction Phase ◽  
Parent Child

Background: Parent–Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) is an effective parent training approach for a commonly occurring and disabling condition, namely conduct problems in young children. Yet, despite ongoing efforts to train clinicians in PCIT, the intervention is not widely available in New Zealand and Australia. Methods: We undertook a cross-sectional online survey of clinicians in New Zealand and Australia who had completed at least the 40-h initial PCIT training, to understand the barriers they encountered in their implementation efforts, and the extent to which attitudes toward time-out influenced implementation. The overall response rate was 47.5% (NZ: 60%; Australia: 31.4%). Results: Responses suggested that participants generally viewed PCIT as both acceptable and effective. Australian participants reported seeing significantly more clients for PCIT per week than those in NZ (Medians 0 and 2, respectively; χ2(1) = 14.08, p < 0.001) and tended to view PCIT as more effective in treating disruptive and oppositional behaviour (95% CI: −0.70, −0.13, p = 0.005). Participants currently seeing PCIT clients described it as more enjoyable to implement than those not using PCIT (95% CI: −0.85, −0.10, p = 0.01). Thirty-eight percent of participants indicated that they adapt or tailor the standardised protocol, primarily by adding in content relating to emotion regulation, and removing content relating to time-out. Participants generally felt that they had fewer skills, less knowledge, and less confidence relating to the Parent-Directed Interaction phase of PCIT (which involves time-out), compared with the Child-Directed Interaction phase. Conclusion: While we had hypothesised that time-out represented an intra-intervention component that detracted from implementation success, results suggested that clinician concern over the use of time-out was present but not prominent. Rather, the lack of access to suitable equipment (i.e., one-way mirror and ear-piece) and difficulties associated with clients attending clinic-based sessions were barriers most commonly reported by clinicians. We suggest that future research might consider whether and how PCIT might be “re-implemented” by already-trained clinicians, moving beyond simply training more clinicians in the approach.

scholarly journals Parent–Child Interaction Therapy in a Community Setting: Examining Outcomes, Attrition, and Treatment Setting

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 689-698 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Lanier ◽  
Patrica L. Kohl ◽  
Joan Benz ◽  
Dawn Swinger ◽  
Pam Moussette ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Community Setting ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Parent Child Interaction Therapy ◽  
Parent Functioning ◽  
Child Interaction ◽  
Parent Outcomes ◽  
Feasible Option ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Parent Child Interaction ◽  
Parent Child

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) deployed in a community setting comparing in-home with the standard office-based intervention. Child behavior, parent stress, parent functioning, and attrition were examined. Methods: Using a quasi-experimental design, standardized measures at three time points were collected from parent-child dyads (n=120) with thirty-seven families completing treatment. Results: Growth modeling analyses indicate significant improvements in child and parent outcomes in both treatment settings with more rapid improvements in parent outcomes within office-based treatment. Attrition was predicted by income and parent functioning. Conclusion: PCIT delivered in the community can produce measureable improvements. In-home PCIT is a feasible option but future research should consider benefits and costs. Treatment completion remains a challenge.

Who Controls Parent—Child Interaction?

1981 ◽  
Vol 26 (10) ◽  
pp. 744-745
Author(s):  
David C. Rowe
Keyword(s):  
Child Interaction ◽  
Parent Child Interaction ◽  
Parent Child

Effects of Motivational Interviewing on Parent--Child Interaction Therapy Adherence and Retention

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Pleickhardt ◽  
Phyllis Ohr ◽  
Nicholas Crimarco ◽  
Christopher Lalima ◽  
Tatyan Mestechkina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Motivational Interviewing ◽  
Therapy Adherence ◽  
Parent Child Interaction Therapy ◽  
Child Interaction ◽  
Parent Child Interaction ◽  
Parent Child
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document