Parent Training and Adolescent Social Functioning: A Brief Report

Abstract

This brief report describes results from an efficacy test of Adolescent ParentWays program, an intervention developed for parents of adolescents ages 13–16 years who have symptoms of behavioral problems and social difficulties. Families were assigned to one of three groups. The in-person treatment group included parents who attended a 10 week, multiple session intervention program (n = 26), an online only treatment group (n = 29) that was given access to a web-based version of the program, or a wait-listed control group (n = 22). Pre- and post- testing of parents and their adolescent child was conducted. The Adolescent ParentWays intervention program was associated with several significant pre-post differences, including enhanced parent–adolescent relationship quality, increased parent knowledge and monitoring, and lower perceived stress for parents. Significant differences in the outcome variables were found for the in-person treatment group and for the on-line only versions of the program, versus a wait-listed control group. This demonstrates the effectiveness of the Adolescent ParentWays intervention program. The findings support the important role of parents in shaping adolescent behaviors and the positive impact of parenting training programs—both in-person traditional models and well as online versions—in promoting positive parent–adolescent relationships. The merits of using online parent training programs are discussed.

Full text

ORIGINAL PAPER
Parent Training and Adolescent Social Functioning: A Brief
Report
Lorraine C. Taylor •Kevin A. Leary •
Alaina E. Boyle •Katelin E. Bigelow •
Teague Henry •Melissa DeRosier
ÓSpringer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract This brief report describes results from an effi-
cacy test of Adolescent ParentWays program, an interven-
tion developed for parents of adolescents ages 13–16 years
who have symptoms of behavioral problems and social
difficulties. Families were assigned to one of three groups.
The in-person treatment group included parents who atten-
ded a 10 week, multiple session intervention program
(n =26), an online only treatment group (n =29) that was
given access to a web-based version of the program, or a
wait-listed control group (n =22). Pre- and post- testing of
parents and their adolescent child was conducted. The
Adolescent ParentWays intervention program was associ-
ated with several significant pre-post differences, including
enhanced parent–adolescent relationship quality, increased
parent knowledge and monitoring, and lower perceived
stress for parents. Significant differences in the outcome
variables were found for the in-person treatment group and
for the on-line only versions of the program, versus a wait-
listed control group. This demonstrates the effectiveness of
the Adolescent ParentWays intervention program. The
findings support the important role of parents in shaping
adolescent behaviors and the positive impact of parenting
training programs—both in-person traditional models and
well as online versions—in promoting positive parent–
adolescent relationships. The merits of using online parent
training programs are discussed.
Keywords Parent training Adolescent behavior
problems Social adjustment Online Interventions
Introduction
Adolescence is typically considered a tumultuous develop-
mental period during which youth undergo a variety of
pivotal biological, emotional, social, and cognitive changes
that impact adjustment and well-being (Brown 1990; DeR-
osier et al. 1994). The importance of peer relationships and
social acceptance become paramount during this period.
Changing social expectations and complex new social
worlds present adolescents with a variety of challenges that
can be difficult to navigate. Adolescents face increased risk
for negative developmental outcomes such as depression
(Boivin and Hymel 1997), suicide (Carney 2000), educa-
tional underachievement and school failure (Woodward and
Fergusson 2000), internalizing and externalizing behavior
problems (Burke et al. 2010; Galambos et al. 2003), drug use
(Spooner 1999), and delinquency (Brendgen et al. 1998).
These problematic outcomes are often linked to difficulties
in social relationships with peers (Reitz et al. 2007).
Threats to adjustment and well-being during the adoles-
cent period are serious and have recently been considered an
important facet of adolescent health. The Healthy People
2020 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
2013) initiative recently added Adolescent Health Objec-
tives as a specific focus area, drawing attention to the pre-
vention of topics such as adolescent mental health,
substance abuse, sexual behavior, and violence. Within the
Healthy People 2020 framework for promoting adolescent
health, the impact of social influences of peers is highlighted
as both a source of risk as well as a potential mechanism for
intervention. The impact of social relationships with peers
L. C. Taylor (&)K. A. Leary A. E. Boyle 
K. E. Bigelow M. DeRosier
3C Institute, 1901 N. Harrison Ave Suite 200, Cary, NC 27513,
USA
e-mail: lorrainectaylor@gmail.com
T. Henry
Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
123
J Child Fam Stud
DOI 10.1007/s10826-014-0106-2

on adolescent development has been clearly established, but
there remains a need to understand how social relationships
can be used to facilitate resilience and success during the
adolescent years.
Parents play a critical role in adolescent socialization
(Taylor et al. 2004) and also serve as guides to help ado-
lescents navigate difficult social challenges and manage
their relationships with peers (Mounts 2011). Family sys-
tems theory (Cox and Paley 1997,2003) underscores the
impact of parents in shaping youth developmental out-
comes. Individual differences in youth behavioral and
social functioning are linked to individual differences in
parenting practices and characteristics (Collins et al. 2000;
Spera 2005). Normal adolescent development includes
increased autonomy and independence from parents as
adolescents become more self-sufficient and able to man-
age their own needs. Nevertheless, research shows that
strong, positive bonds between adolescents and their par-
ents predict pro-social outcomes for youth, fewer interac-
tions with deviant peers, and greater youth social
competence, and increased youth satisfaction with their
peer relationships (Swanson et al. 2011; Updegraff et al.
2001). Finding ways to support and enhance positive par-
ent–adolescent relationships is a critical protective strategy
for increasing positive developmental outcomes for ado-
lescents and buffering them against the negative impact of
challenges in their social worlds.
The connection between parenting behaviors and ado-
lescent experiences with peers has been well-established.
The tripartite model of family-peer linkages describes how
parenting practices and interaction styles with adolescents
impacts adolescent’s social success with their peers (Parke
et al. 1994). Studies have suggested the importance of
understanding these links from a person-oriented approach
(Bergman and Magnusson 1997; Kan and McHale 2007),
allowing for the identification of relationship dynamics
within families that are associated with variability in out-
comes. Emphasizing relationship dynamics between par-
ents and adolescents and considering how these processes
may impact adolescent relationships with their peers is an
important strategy for identifying strategies that can be
used to promote better outcomes for adolescents, particu-
larly those who have established social difficulties.
Research suggests that parent training programs can be
an effective treatment strategy for promoting positive
adolescent outcomes (DeRosier and Gilliom 2007). It is
particularly important to deliver parent training programs
during the transition to adolescence (ages 10–14 years)
because parental influences on their youth still remain
strong during this developmental period (Burke et al. 2012;
Hayes et al. 2004). A plethora of programs designed to
teach parenting skills to promote positive youth develop-
ment are available. For example, the Triple P-Positive
Parenting Program (Nowak and Heinrichs 2008) has been
shown to be effective in reducing youth problem behaviors
through effective parent training. Triple P has extensive
online parent resources, although the intervention itself
consists of multiple in-person sessions with a trained group
leader. Parenting Adolescents Wisely (Kacir and Gordon
1999) is an example of an interactive, computer-based
training program for youth. It consists of multiple online
sessions to be completed by parents and targets youth
behavior problems and risk for substance abuse (Kacir and
Gordon 1999). Both Triple P and Parenting Adolescents
Wisely are popular, evidence-based programs, but are rel-
atively expensive unless administered through community
health providers or other professional settings. More
options for evidence-based parent training programs that
meet the real-world needs of families and offer affordable,
online access are needed.
The value of in-person programs that include contact
between parents and intervention staff has been noted. For
example, the Community Preventive Services Task Force
recommends person-to-person programs on the basis that
such programs have been proven effective in reducing
adolescent risk behaviors (CPSTF 2012). Features found to
be particularly important in promoting positive program
outcomes include interactive discussion opportunities
between the parent participants and trained program staff,
opportunities for parents to ask questions and receive
feedback, and opportunities for parents to practice skills
(CPSTF 2012). Despite the effectiveness of parent training
programs in reducing problematic behaviors for adoles-
cents (Burke et al. 2010), few such programs exist in online
formats that provide increased usability and availability to
parents.
Families may be challenged in meeting the demands of
traditional in-person intervention programs for several
reasons. They may lack adequate time and resources to
participate in multiple weeks of sessions. The stigma
associated with in-person group sessions may also prohibit
some families from engaging in in-person parent training
opportunities. In addition, the cost of providing in-person
group parenting training may be prohibitive to various
service providers who may be interested in making avail-
able evidence-based parent training programs for families.
Because of these limitations, online parent trainings that
are also evidence-based and approved by parents may be
useful in conveying the many benefits of parent training
programs without the implementation challenges associ-
ated with in-person group sessions.
The use of online technologies to deliver parent training
is growing. Some quality online parent training programs
have been developed that target parents of particularly
high-risk children, including programs developed specifi-
cally to train foster or adoptive parents (Pacifici et al.
J Child Fam Stud
123

2006), for children whose parents are divorcing (Bowers
et al. 2011; Schramm and McCaulley 2012), or for parents
with children who are recovering from pediatric brain
injury (Wade et al. 2006). Online parent training programs
targeting parents of adolescents proffer several key
advantages over traditional, in-person group sessions. For
instance, online parenting programs allow parents the
ability to engage and maintain involvement in the program
content without fear of shame, judgment, or guilt, all of
which can serve as barriers to participating in in-person
interventions. Delivering parenting support via the internet
is time efficient, cost-effective, and easily accessible to
most families, as the majority of households (nearly 80 %
in 2011) have access to internet (File 2013). Online pro-
grams may lack face-to-face interaction with group leaders,
but the emphasis on self-directed learning, inclusion of text
and video, and the use of quizzes or tests for parents are
appealing features of online parent training programs
(Bowers et al. 2011).
Demonstrating the impact of a new and innovative
parent training program designed to help adolescents nav-
igate social relationships with peers and family members is
the primary aim of the present study. Testing the relative
effectiveness of the program delivered using an in-person
group setting versus an online format is a secondary aim.
The present study focuses on the Adolescent ParentWays
program, targeting parents of adolescents ages 13–16.
Compared to a wait-listed control group of parents and
adolescents, participation in the Adolescent ParentWays in-
person and online treatment conditions was expected to
positively impact parent–adolescent relationship quality,
improve understanding of effective parenting strategies,
increase parental monitoring of adolescents’ behavior, and
reduce stress in both parents and adolescents.
Method
Participants
Participating families were recruited via emails and fliers
sent to counselors at local middle schools, community
centers that provide programs for adolescents, health
clinics, and mental health service providers. Print adver-
tisements were placed in several local free publications as
well. Parents of adolescents ages 13–16 were invited to
participate in a social skills group designed to help parents
more effectively work with youth who are experiencing
social difficulties. Parents were told they would be con-
sidered to participate in the intervention, which included
their target adolescent completing surveys at 2 time points
during the intervention. Interested parents completed an
online eligibility survey, which included a screening
measure to determine the adolescent’s level of social and
behavioral problems. Parents reported on the adolescent’s
social difficulties using subscales from the Child Behavior
Checklist (Achenbach and Edelbrook 1980). To be eligible
for participation in the intervention, adolescents had to
have a T-score in the at-risk range on any of the subscales
of the CBCL. A total of 77 eligible families were recruited
for the study. Once accepted into the study, each family
was randomly assigned to one of three conditions: In-per-
son treatment group (n =26), online treatment group
(n =29), or a wait-listed control group (n =22). The three
groups did not differ significantly on any demographic
variables.
The final sample of participating parents consisted pri-
marily of mothers of the target adolescent (91 %). Most of
the parent participants were married (68 %) and had earned
a college degree or graduate degree (70 %). Seventy-seven
percent of the parents were White/European American,
14 % were Black/African American, 5 % were Asian, and
4 % were Hispanic/Latino. The sample of adolescents was
39 % female and 61 % male (see Table 1).
Procedure
After obtaining informed consent from participating par-
ents and assent from adolescents, all parents and adoles-
cents completed pre-assessments prior to the start of the
intervention and post-assessments following the 10 week
intervention period. Participants in all three conditions
completed pre-assessments and post-assessments at the
research center. Assessments did not differ based on
Table 1 Descriptive statistics
N=77 Mean SD Range
Adolescent age (years) 14.01 1.10 12–16
Caregiver age (years) 47.26 6.24 35–64
Adolescent grade 8.79 1.45 6th–12th
Number of adults in home 1.87 0.61 1–4
Number of children in home 1.96 0.88 1.5
Number of siblings 1.05 0.92 0.4
N Percentage
Caregiver gender
Male 5 7
Female 72 93
Ethnicity
Asian/Native 4 5
Black/African American 11 14
Latino/a/Hispanic 3 4
White 59 77
Other 3 4
J Child Fam Stud
123

condition. At both time points, a trained research staff
member met with each parent individually and provided an
assessment packet of paper and pencil measures to com-
plete independently. Adolescent participants met with a
trained research staff member separately to complete their
paper and pencil assessment packet. To alleviate potential
issues with literacy, research staff members read all
assessment questions aloud unless specifically asked not to.
Each parent and adolescent participant was compensated
for their time and effort.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of three
treatment condition. For the participants selected to be in
the Adolescent ParentWays in-person treatment condition,
parents selected one (out of 4 possible) weekly group
meeting day and time. These meetings occurred in the late
afternoons or early evenings on a week night at the
research center. The in-person parent groups met weekly
for 10 consecutive weeks for approximately one hour per
meeting. Three to five parents were included in each of the
groups. Each in-person session was led by two trained
group leaders, including at least one Masters or Ph.D. level
psychologist with prior experience leading parenting
groups. The curriculum developed for the Adolescent
ParentWays intervention was structured and manualized
such that detailed scripts and activities were used to
instruct parents on adolescent social development and
behavior and included video-based content, role plays, and
other supplemental activities for the parent to share with
the adolescent at home. The combination of didactic
instruction and active practice is an effective strategy for
parent training, as evidenced by versions of the S.S.GRIN
program (DeRosier and Markus 2005), the program for
younger children and their families that is the foundation
for the current Adolescent ParentWays program. Group
leaders for the in-person sessions completed weekly online
fidelity ratings to track their adherence to the intervention
protocol. Fidelity ratings showed that all group leaders
adhered to intervention protocol and all planned activities
were conducted during each group meeting in accordance
with the curriculum implementation guidelines.
The in-person treatment condition featured weekly
parent group meetings led by a trained group leader.
Course content featured discussion topics, homework
activities, role-plays, instructional content, and demon-
stration videos. The on-line only condition received the
same materials delivered via computer. Online participants
were presented with videos of an in-person group dis-
cussing the various topics, although watching the video
discussions is quite different from participating in actual
discussions. Nevertheless, the online participants were
exposed to the same types of discussion group dynamics as
demonstrated in the videos. Parent participants randomly
assigned to the online treatment group received login
instructions for the secure, proprietary website that con-
tained the Adolescent ParentWays curriculum. The online
participants completed the sessions over the same time
period that the in-person groups attended the treatment
groups. On Monday of each week, the subsequent session
was made available to online participants. Throughout that
week, parents in the online condition would independently
access and navigate the material included in that week’s
session. All past sessions remained available to access so
that parents could return to previous weeks’ curriculum.
Participants in the wait-listed control condition received
login instructions for the secure, proprietary website that
contained the Adolescent ParentWays curriculum in its
entirety after the 10 week intervention period had ended
and all post-assessments were completed.
Measures
Demographics
At pre-assessment, parents completed a demographic
questionnaire in which parent and adolescent age and race,
and parental education, employment, and income data were
collected.
Parent–adolescent relationship
Characteristics of parent–adolescent relationships were
assessed using an adapted version of the Parent-Adolescent
Relationship Scale (Hair et al. 2006). Parents and adoles-
cents responded to this 21-item measure at both pre-
assessment and post-assessment. This measure assesses the
hostile/coercive and positive/supportive nature of familial
relationships through participants’ reports of their parent’s
or adolescent’s behavior. For all items, participants were
asked to report how often they engaged in certain behaviors
in the past month (0 =never;5=always). Sample items
assessing hostile/coercive parent–teen relationship behav-
iors include ‘‘criticize you or your ideas,’’ ‘‘hit, push, or
shove you,’’ and ‘‘try to make you feel guilty.’’ Example
items from the positive/supportive subscale include ‘‘listen
carefully to your point of view,’’ ‘‘act loving and affec-
tionate toward you,’’ and ‘‘help you do something that was
important to you.’’ In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha
for the both subscales at each time point ranged from .88 to
.90 for parents and from .87 to .91 for adolescents.
Parental monitoring
At both time points, parents and adolescents completed a
5-item scale assessing parental monitoring behavior,
including parents’ knowledge of their adolescents’ friends
and whereabouts. Sample items of this scale are ‘‘You
J Child Fam Stud
123

(your mother/father) want to know exactly where you are
and what you are doing’’ and ‘‘You (your mother/father)
know about who your friends are.’’ Internal consistency (a)
in the current sample was .78 and .82 at pre-assessment for
parents and adolescents, respectively, and .76 for parents
and .85 for adolescents, at post-assessment.
Parental stress
Parental stress was measured using the Parent Stress
Index (PSI; Abidin 1995). The PSI is designed to identify
dysfunctional parent–child systems and adolescents with
emotional problems. This measure is widely used and has
been validated with diverse populations (Cain and
Combs-Orme 2005; Dekovic and Meeus 1997). The
modified version of the PSI used in this study consists of
34 items and was administered to parents at pre-assess-
ment and post-assessment. Parents responded to items on
a four-point Likert scale (1 =strongly disagree;
4=strongly agree). The items of the PSI assess three
components of parental stress: personal distress, parent–
teen dysfunctional interaction, and perceptions of the
general difficulty of one’s teen. Sample personal distress
items include ‘‘I often have the feeling that I cannot
handle things very well’’ and ‘‘Having a child has caused
more problems than I expected in my relationships with
my spouse.’’ Reliability estimates (a) for the personal
distress subscale were .88 and .92 at pre- and post-
assessment, respectively. Parent–teen dysfunction items
included ‘‘Most times I feel that my teen does not like me
and does not want to be close to me’’ and ‘‘Sometimes
my teen does things that bother me just to be mean.’’
Reliability estimates (a) for this subscale were .87 and
.86, respectively. Items assessing the parental perceptions
of having a difficult teen include ‘‘My teen doesn’t seem
to learn as quickly as most teens’’ and ‘‘My teen gets
easily upset over the smallest thing.’’ In the present
sample, reliability estimates for this subscale were .82 at
pre-assessment and .88 at post-assessment.
Acquired knowledge
At both time points, parents completed an achieved
learning questionnaire (ALQ) to assess their knowledge of
material addressed through the intervention, including
teen social skills, adolescent development, and parenting
techniques. The ALQ consisted of 50 multiple-choice
questions and 12 true or false questions and was used to
determine how effectively parents learned pertinent
information concerning interactions with their adolescent
as a result of the intervention. Higher scores were indic-
ative of knowledge of adolescent development and social
skills.
Data analyses
Pre- and post-intervention testing was conducted. To test
the efficacy of the intervention in improving parent and
child outcomes, a repeated measures MANOVA was con-
ducted with time point (pre-intervention, post-intervention)
and treatment condition (in-person, online, control) serving
as within- and between-subjects factors, respectively.
Results
Results indicated significant main effects of time for
parental perceptions of their adolescents’ difficulty [F(2,
65) =18.39, p\.001, g
2
=.22], parent–adolescent rela-
tionship dysfunction [F(2, 65) =6.90, p=.01, g
2
=.10],
and hostility in the parent–child relationship [F(2,
65) =36.12, p\.001, g
2
=.36]. However, a significant
time by condition interaction was found for parental
knowledge [F(2, 65) =40.17, p\.001, g
2
=.38]. As can
be seen in Table. 2, parents who took part in the in-person
treatment group experienced significantly greater gains in
knowledge about handling the behavioral difficulties of
their adolescent than participants in the online or control
conditions.
Although the size of our sample likely limited our
ability to find significant omnibus effects of change over
time as a function of condition for many outcomes,
examination of pairwise comparisons revealed significant
differences in change from pre- to post-intervention as a
function of condition (see Table 2). Specifically, parent–
child relationship dysfunction, adolescent behavioral dif-
ficulties, and relationship hostility decreased significantly
from pre-intervention to post-intervention, whereas paren-
tal knowledge increased over time, for families who par-
ticipated in the Adolescent ParentWays intervention (both
in-person and online) relative to families in the control
condition, providing evidence for the effectiveness of this
intervention program.
Discussion
Based on the Parent Guide for Social Skills Group Inter-
vention (SSGRIN-PG; DeRosier 2002), the present Ado-
lescent ParentWays program focuses specifically on the
social challenges that relate to development during middle
and late adolescence. The Adolescent ParentWays program
was developed for parents of youth experiencing social
behavioral issues and focuses on (1) enhancing parent–
adolescent relationship quality, (2) increasing parental
knowledge about adolescent development and increasing
parental monitoring of adolescents, and (3) reducing parent
J Child Fam Stud
123

and adolescent stress. The in-person, 10-week parent
training program was associated with improvements in the
overall parent–adolescent relationship. The online only
condition was also associated with significant pre-post
differences, compared to the wait-listed control group,
demonstrating the efficacy of both treatment conditions of
the Adolescent ParentWays intervention program.
Increased parent knowledge about adolescent development,
improved relationships with adolescents, and lower per-
ceptions of their teens as being difficult were found for the
in-person condition. Similar positive results were found for
the online condition, although pre-post change coefficients
were smaller in magnitude. Overall, both treatment con-
ditions demonstrated significant pre-post change, compared
to the wait listed control group, providing evidence for the
effectiveness of the program.
The benefits of in-person group approaches to parent
training have been underscored (CPSTF 2012). Our find-
ings demonstrate the advantages that result from having
multiple group sessions with other parents led by train
group leaders. Parents reported lower levels of perceived
stress during post-testing, indicating that the in-person
parent training resulted in overall improvements in rela-
tionship dynamics and well-being for parents. Given ade-
quate time and resources, in-person parent training
experiences like Adolescent ParentWays may be a partic-
ularly effective method for boosting parent–adolescent
relationship quality and enhancing the likelihood for ado-
lescent social success.
Results from the Adolescent ParentWays intervention
highlight the effectiveness of parent training in improving
parenting behaviors, consistent with other work (Kacir and
Gordon 1999). Despite the dearth of online, evidence-based
programs, using this particular approach may be useful for
reaching a broader segment of parents than what is
typically found for in-person groups. Findings from the
online condition show significant improvements in parent
knowledge in overall parent–adolescent relationship qual-
ity, similar to the effect found for the in-person treatment
condition and in contrast to the lack of differences found
for the wait-listed control group. Although the magnitude
of the pre-post change scores was smaller for the online
relative to the in-person condition, the overall significant
improvement found for participants in the online condition
underscores the values of using technology based parent
training programs. Quality online parent training programs
can provide an effective and cost-efficient, alternative
strategy for improving parent–adolescent relationships for
families where attending multiple-week in-person groups is
not feasible.
Additionally, the in-person and online conditions of the
Adolescent ParentWays program were found to be effec-
tive in improving parent–adolescent relationships, demon-
strating the effectiveness of both delivery methods for
parent training programs. Having both in-person and online
versions of the intervention program was a strength of this
study and allowed for direct comparisons to be made for
the different delivery methods, a strength of the present
study. Given the increased intensity of participant
involvement with program content found for the in-person
condition, it is not surprising that this condition was
associated with the most overall effects on participants.
Demonstrating the effectiveness of the online version of
the program, even if fewer overall effects were found rel-
ative to the in-person condition, is also an important
strength of this study.
Some important limitations to this project should be
noted. Although there were significant positive effects on
the parent variables, no significant impacts were found for
the adolescents who completed pre-post measures. Given
Table 2 Pairwise comparisons testing change from pre- to post-intervention
Variable Condition
In-person Online Control
Pre Post DPre Post DPre Post D
Parental monitoring 3.46 (.09) 3.55 (.10) 0.09 3.45 (.09) 3.63 (.09) 0.18 3.65 (.09) 3.56 (.10) -0.09
Knowledge 38.59 (1.27) 46.09 (1.32) 7.50*** 37.83 (1.22) 41.21 (1.26) 3.38** 35.00 (1.27) 36.91 (1.32) 1.91
Parental distress 2.10 (.12) 2.05 (.13) -0.05 2.01 (.11) 1.87 (.12) -0.14 2.10 (.12) 2.01 (.13) -0.09
Parent -teen
dysfunction
2.38 (.13) 2.14 (.13) -0.24* 2.23 (.12) 2.06 (.12) -0.17

2.22 (.13) 2.21 (.13) -0.01
Difficult teen 2.80 (.13) 2.34 (.14) -0.46*** 2.51 (.12) 2.29 (.13) -0.22* 2.54 (.13) 2.45 (.14) -0.09
Hostile relationship 1.49 (.14) 1.06 (.12) -0.43*** 1.29 (.13) 0.96 (.11) -0.33** 1.32 (.14) 1.05 (.12) -0.27**
Positive
relationship
1.71 (.15) 1.97 (.16) 0.26* 1.92 (.14) 1.92 (.15) 0.00 1.77 (.15) 1.80 (.16) 0.03

p\.10; * p\.05; ** p\.01; *** p\.001
J Child Fam Stud
123

the relatively short time frame for the pre-post assessments,
is it likely that parents were in the early stages of inte-
grating their newfound knowledge and more positive per-
ceptions into specific parenting practices with their
adolescents. Perhaps another data collection time point
after a longer period of time has elapsed would be helpful
in capturing change in adolescent behaviors. Continued
longitudinal assessment of program impact is needed.
As mentioned previously, participants in the online con-
dition experience significant per-post change in targeted
domains, although these differences were not as large as those
for the in-person treatment. However, no information about
online users engagement with the software was collected.
Without such information, it is possible that differences
between the online and in-person conditions may be attrib-
utable to differences in user engagement. Although conve-
nient, online participants may be more easily distracted and
less engaged in program content than in-person treatment
participants. Assessment of patterns of use, progress moni-
toring, feedback on program details, and strategies for making
the program more useful in home contexts should be under-
taken in order to increase usability and effectiveness of the
online program. Additional follow-up with online users will
ensure that program features meet the needs of parents and
address topics that are especially relevant.
Despite these limitations, the present study provides
evidence for the positive impact of a high-quality parent
training program on parent knowledge about adolescence,
reduced perceptions of adolescent dysfunction, and overall
improvements in quality of relationships with adolescents.
Our findings support the impact of both in-person multiple-
week traditional sessions as well as on-line only formats
for delivery of the intervention program. These findings
underscore the value that both in-person and online pro-
grams can offer in reaching parents struggling to effec-
tively interact with adolescents with social and behavioral
problems and sets the stage for additional research and
program development on the use of online technologies for
parent training. Online programs can provide a range of
families with information and support for their parenting
practices without the challenges that often plague tradi-
tional in-person interventions.
References
Abidin, R. R. (1995). Parenting stress index, third edition: Professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.
Achenbach, T., & Edelbrock, C. (1980). Child behavior checklist:
CBCL.-T. Achenbach, University of Vermont.
Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. (1997). A person-oriented
approach in research ondevelopmental psychopathology. Devel-
opment and Psychopathology, 9, 291–319.
Boivin, M., & Hymel, S. (1997). Peer experiences and social self-
perceptions: A sequential model. Developmental Psychology, 33,
135–145.
Bowers, J. R., Mitchell, E. T., Hardesty, J. L., & Hughes, R. (2011). A
review of online divorce education programs. Family Court
Review, 49, 776–787.
Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1998). Affiliation with
delinquent friends: Contributions of parents, self-esteem, delin-
quent behavior, and rejection by peers. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 18, 244–265.
Brown, B. (1990). Peer groups. In S. Feldman & G. Elliott (Eds.), At
the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 171–196). Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burke, K., Brennan, L., & Cann, W. (2012). Promoting protective
factors for young adolescents: ABCD Parenting Young Adoles-
cence Program randomized controlled trial. Journal of Adoles-
cence, 35, 1315–1328.
Burke, K., Brennan, L., & Roney, S. (2010). A randomised controlled
trial of the efficacy of the ABCD Parenting Young Adolescence
Program: Rationale and methodology. Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4(22), 1–14.
Cain, D. S., & Combs-Orme, T. (2005). Family structure effects on
parenting stress and practices in the African American family.
Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 32, 19–40.
Carney, J. V. (2000). Bullied to death: Perceptions of peer abuse and
suicidal behaviour during adolescence. School Psychology
International, 21, 213–223.
Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., &
Bornstein, M. H. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting:
The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55,
218–232.
Community Preventive Services Task Force. (2012). Improving
adolescent health through interventions targeted to parents and
other caregivers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 42,
327–328.
Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review
of Psychology, 48, 243–267.
Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (2003). Understanding families as systems.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 193–196.
Dekovic, M., & Meeus, W. (1997). Peer relations in adolescence—
effects of parenting and adolescents self-concept. Journal of
Adolescence, 20, 163–176.
DeRosier, M. E. (2002). Group interventions and exercises for
enhancing children’s communication, cooperation, and confi-
dence. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resources Press.
DeRosier, M. E., & Gilliom, M. (2007). Effectiveness of a parent
training program for improving children’s social behavior.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 660–670.
DeRosier, M. E., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1994).
Children’s academic and behavioral adjustment as a function of
the chronicity and proximity of peer rejection. Child Develop-
ment, 65(6), 1799–1813.
DeRosier, M. E., & Markus, S. R. (2005). Building friendships and
combatting bullying: Effectiveness of S.S.GRIN at one year
follow-up. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
34, 140–150.
File, T. (2013). Computer and internet use in the United States.
Current Population Survey Reports, P20-568. U.S. Census
Bureau,Washington, DC.
Galambos, N. L., Barker, E. T., & Almeida, D. M. (2003). Parents do
matter: Trajectories of change in externalizing and internalizing
problems in early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 578–594.
Hair, E. C., Moore, K. A., Garrett, S. B., Kinukawa, A., Lippman, L.,
& Michelson, E. (2006). The parent–adolescent relationship
scale. In K. A. Moore & L. H. Lippman (Eds.), What do children
J Child Fam Stud
123

need to flourish?: Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of
positive development (pp. 183–202). New York: Springer.
Hayes, L., Smart, D., Toumbourou, J. W., & Sanson, A. (2004).
Parenting influences on adolescent alcohol use (pp. 1–104).
Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Kacir, C., & Gordon, D. (1999). Parenting Adolescents Wisely: The
effectiveness of an interactive videodisk parent training program
in Appalachia. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 21, 1–22.
Kan, M. L., & McHale, S. M. (2007). Clusters and correlates of
experiences with parents and peers in early adolescence. Journal
of Research on Adolescence, 17, 565–586.
Mounts, N. S. (2011). Parental management of peer relationships and
early adolescents’ social skills. Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence, 40(4), 416–427.
Nowak, C., & Heinrichs, N. (2008). A comprehensive meta-analysis
of Triple P—positive parenting program using hierarchical linear
modeling: Effectiveness and moderating variables. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review, 11, 114–144.
Pacifici, C., Delaney, R., White, L., Nelson, C., & Cummings, K.
(2006). Web-based training for foster, adoptive, and kinship
parents. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 1329–1343.
Parke, R. D., Burks, V. M., Carson, J. L., Neville, B., & Boyum, L. A.
(1994). Family-peer relationships: A tripartite model. In R.
D. Parke & S. G. Kellam (Eds.), Exploring family relationships
with other social contexts (pp. 115–145). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reitz, E., Prinzie, P., Dekovic, M., & Buist, K. L. (2007). The role of
peer contacts in the relationship between parental knowledge and
adolescents’ externalizing behaviors: A latent growth curve
modeling approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36,
623–624.
Schramm, D. G., & McCaulley, G. (2012). Divorce education for
parents: A comparison of online and in-person delivery methods.
Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 53, 602–617.
Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting
practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement.
Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125–146.
Spooner, C. (1999). Causes and correlates of adolescent drug abuse
and implications for treatment. Drug and Alcohol Review, 18,
453–475.
Swanson, J., Valiente, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., & O’Brien, T. C.
(2011). Predicting early adolescents’ academic achievement,
social competence, and physical health from parenting, ego
resilience, and engagement coping. Journal of Early Adoles-
cence, 31, 548–576.
Taylor, L. C., Clayton, J. D., & Rowley, S. J. (2004). Academic
socialization: Understanding parental influences on children’s
school-related development in the early years. Review of General
Psychology, 8, 163–178.
Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Kupanoff, K.
(2001). Parents’ involvement in adolescents’ peer relationships:
A comparison of mothers’ and fathers’ roles. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 63, 655–668.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2013). Available at:
https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/Ado
lescent-Health.
Wade, S. L., Carey, J., & Wolfe, C. R. (2006). The efficacy of an
online cognitive-behavioral family intervention in improving
child behavior and social competence following pediatric brain
injury. Rehabilitation Psychology, 51, 179–189.
Woodward, L. J., & Fergusson, D. M. (2000). Childhood peer
relationship problems and later risks of educational under-
achievement and unemployment. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 41, 191–201.
J Child Fam Stud
123