Cited by 59Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentBehavioral and Psychological Studies

Parent–Teen Group versus Dyadic Treatment for Adolescent ADHD: What Works for Whom?

Sibley, Margaret H., Rodriguez, Lourdes, Coxe, Stefany, Page, Timothy, Espinal, Kisbel·2020·Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology

Abstract

The goal of this study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy of 2 clinic-based psychosocial treatment modalities for adolescent attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and identify characteristics that facilitate patient-modality matching. Culturally diverse adolescents with ADHD (N = 123) were randomized to 1 of 2 versions of a parent–teen psychosocial treatment for ADHD (Supporting Teens’ Autonomy Daily [STAND]): (a) group parent and adolescent skills training or (b) dyadic skills training blended with motivational interviewing. Participants were assessed at baseline, posttreatment, and 6-month follow-up on ADHD symptom severity and functional treatment targets. Differences in therapy process and cost were documented. Modality differences in outcome were examined using linear mixed and general linear models. Each modality successfully engaged the proposed therapy processes. Dyadic and group STAND produced equivalent overall outcomes. However, the dyadic modality demonstrated superior efficacy when parents had elevated ADHD or depression symptoms or high conflict with the teen. Families with lower parent education level and higher parental depression showed lower overall attendance; married parents were more likely to attend dyadic STAND (vs. group). Naturalistic stimulant medication did not influence treatment outcome. At less than one third of the cost of dyadic treatment, group models may be an economical option for treating parents and adolescents with ADHD. Screening adolescents with ADHD for parental psychopathology and parent–teen conflict may allow clinics to match higher risk patients to more personalized approaches that can enhance efficacy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15374416.2019.1585257

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sibley, M. H., Rodriguez, L., Coxe, S., Page, T., & Espinal, K.
Affiliations
Florida International University (US)
Corresponding author
Sibley, Margaret H.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology
Published
2019-04-16
Volume
49
Issue
4
Pages
476-492
ISSN
  • 1537-4416 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-4424
OpenAlex
W2937009677
Cited by
59
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
8.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation (Fellowship in ADHD)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
adolescent ADHD, parental depression, motivational interviewing, treatment costs, treatment attendance, cultural diversity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Parent-Child Relations, Treatment Outcome

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