Trial reportResearch on child and adolescent psychopathology2021
Using Parent Target Problem Narratives to Evaluate Outcomes in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Trial report in Research on child and adolescent psychopathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07059364 (Empowering Caregivers to Promote Child Independence and Persistence With Activities), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Empowering Caregivers to Promote Child Independence and Persistence With Activities
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This paper examines the reliability and validity of parent target problems (PTPs) in a multi-site randomized controlled trial of parent training (PT) versus psychoeducation (PEP) in children (150 boys, 19 girls; mean age 4.7 ± 1.2 years) with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and disruptive behavior. At baseline, treatment blind, independent evaluators asked parents to nominate the child's top two problems. Each problem was documented in a brief narrative. Narratives were reviewed and revised at follow-up visits during the six-month trial. When the trial was completed, five judges, blind to treatment condition, independently rated change from baseline on a 9-point scale (1 = normal; 2 = markedly improved; 3 = definitely improved; 4 = equivocally improved; 5 = no change; 6 = possibly worse; 7 = definitely worse; 8 = markedly worse; 9 = disastrously worse) at Weeks 8, 12, 16, and 24 (inter-rater intraclass correlation = 0.78). PTP scores for the two target problems were averaged across the five raters, yielding a mean score for each child at each time point. Mean PTP scores showed improvement in both treatment groups over the 24-week study. Compared to PEP, PTP ratings showed a steeper decline in PT based on significant interaction of group and time (t(df) = 2.14(155.9), p = 0.034; Week 24 effect size = 0.75). In categorical analysis, we compared cutoffs mean PTP scores of 3.0 (definitely improved), 3.25, and 3.5 with the positive response rate on the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale from the original study. Sensitivities ranged from 52-78%. PTP narratives offer a systematic, reliable, and valid way to track child-specific outcomes in clinical trials and clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.