CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,077Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentBehavioral and Psychological StudiesChild Therapy and Development

The Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: a systematic review and meta-analysis of a multi-level system of parenting support

Sanders, Matthew R., Kirby, James N., Tellegen, Cassandra L., Day, Jamin J.·2014·Clinical Psychology Review
DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.04.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effects of the multilevel Triple P-Positive Parenting Program system on a broad range of child, parent and family outcomes. Multiple search strategies identified 116 eligible studies conducted over a 33-year period, with 101 studies comprising 16,099 families analyzed quantitatively. Moderator analyses were conducted using structural equation modeling. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed. Significant short-term effects were found for: children's social, emotional and behavioral outcomes (d=0.473); parenting practices (d=0.578); parenting satisfaction and efficacy (d=0.519); parental adjustment (d=0.340); parental relationship (d=0.225) and child observational data (d=0.501). Significant effects were found for all outcomes at long-term including parent observational data (d=0.249). Moderator analyses found that study approach, study power, Triple P level, and severity of initial child problems produced significant effects in multiple moderator models when controlling for other significant moderators. Several putative moderators did not have significant effects after controlling for other significant moderators. The positive results for each level of the Triple P system provide empirical support for a blending of universal and targeted parenting interventions to promote child, parent and family wellbeing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.04.003

Cites

171 of 171 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The lack of statistically significant subgroup results by program duration, delivery modality, and setting is consistent with prior meta-analyses that showed no associations between these program aspects and intervention effects on ECD and parent-level outcomes.

    “Furthermore, the lack of statistically significant subgroup results by program duration, delivery modality, and setting are also consistent with the few prior meta-analyses that have conducted similar analyses and shown no associations between these program aspects and intervention effects on ECD and parent-level outcomes [62].”

    From Parenting interventions to promote early child development in the first three years of life: A global systematic review and meta-analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [62]

  • The lack of statistically significant subgroup results by child age is consistent with prior meta-analyses that showed no age effects among parenting interventions focused during early childhood or spanning broader age ranges.

    “The lack of statistically significant subgroup results by child age are consistent with the few prior meta-analyses that have similarly shown no age effects among parenting interventions focused during early childhood [9,22] or spanning broader age ranges from early to middle childhood [49] or birth to age 18 [62].”

    From Parenting interventions to promote early child development in the first three years of life: A global systematic review and meta-analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [62]

  • Specific intervention programs including the Circle of Security, Triple P, Video Interaction for Promoting Positive Parenting Programme, and Mom Power have been validated according to randomized clinical trial approaches.

    “Specific intervention programs including the Circle of Security (Hoffman et al., 2006; Powell et al., 2014), Triple P (Positive Parenting Program) (Sanders et al., 2014), Video Interaction for Promoting Positive Parenting Programme (Van Zeijl et al., 2006), and Mom Power (Muzik et al., 2015), have been validated according to randomized clinical trial approaches.”

    From The maternal brain and its plasticity in humans (2016) · cites this paper as Sanders et al., 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sanders, M. R., Kirby, J. N., Tellegen, C. L., & Day, J. J.
Affiliations
The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Sanders, Matthew R.
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-06
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
337-357
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cpr.2014.04.003
OpenAlex
W2147100455
Cited by
1,077
References
170
Citations by year
2026: 86 · 2025: 98 · 2024: 110 · 2023: 104 · 2022: 83 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 119 · 2019: 94 · 2018: 78 · 2017: 72 · 2016: 83 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 17 · 2012: 1
FWCI
10.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2014-12-01)
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Therapy and Development
Keywords
Triple P-Positive Parenting Program, parenting support, child behavior problems, parenting practices, parenting satisfaction, parental adjustment, parent-child relationship, child well-being, family well-being
MeSH terms
Adult, Child, Child Behavior Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Parents, Personal Satisfaction, Social Support, Program Evaluation, Parenting

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review