Talk:Parent management training/Archive 1

Untitled
Why is there an ad for the World Association for Behaviour Analysis here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.238.51 (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite
Hi, I'm going to make a major rewrite of this article in the next 5 weeks. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Kguan10 (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Parent management training

Sourcing issues
There are claims made about treatment efficacy based on primary sources (see WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS). I removed those claims from the lead, and tagged them in the body. What is this source? It says it's a database, and when you click on it, the link goes to a password-protected database. That's not a complete citation. The impression is that the writer compiled data from a database, which would be original research. I added PMIDs so our readers can link to abstracts of the citations; it would be helpful if PMIDs would be added to all citations. I've removed several other primary-sourced sections. The remaining tagged text should not be available to our readers, as it is irresponsible to suggest treatment to our readers based on primary, unreviewed sources. I will wait 24 hours to see if someone replaces them with secondary sources. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * PracticeWise, LLC (2014). Evidence-Based Youth Behavioral Health Services Literature Database. Retrieved from http://www.practicewise.com/pwebs_2/About.aspx
 * Thank you Sandy Georgia for your feedback. PracticeWise is a third-party organization that reviews existing empirical research on mental health treatments and presents summaries of the types of treatments that are most effective. Other so-called original research that you deleted included literature reviews and meta-analyses published in reputable journals. The Wikipedia Guide for editing Psychology articles explicitly condones these types of sources. As for the other sources, a Wikipedia representative who visited our class gave us the impression that "original research" consisted of raw data, not peer-reviewed journal articles. If this was a misrepresentation, I apologize - but I hope that you will assume that everyone in our class has the best of intentions and is not trying to be "irresponsible" or biased. I am not able to make changes to all sources in 24 hours, but I will fix remaining issues in the next month. Kguan10 (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Kguan10; thanks for weighing in. On the Practice-wise citations, then, we need article titles or something that looks more like an actual citation (date, author, title, accessdate, etc). As they stand now, they are just a link to a database without titles; what article does one look for in that database to cite specific text? I did not delete any "other so-called original research"; I removed some text from the lead cited to primary sources, which is a different issue.  What I questioned as original research is tagged in the article, needing full citations to the Practice-wise database of journal reports. I corrected your link to the PDF (above) and it accurately summarizes the gist of WP:PSTS, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.  (If there is something in that summary that you believe allows the use of primary sources for specific text, please excerpt it here, so I can explain any confusion.)  We don't use primary sources to draw conclusions; I saw nothing there that differs with guideline or policy on Wikipedia.  See page 3 of the PDF you linked-- it's accurate.  I added PMIDs on several of the primary sources you used so that you can click on the PMID, read the abstract, and see they are primary studies.  Also, what the representative told you is partially correct but there is more.  Stringing together primary sources-- even if they are published in reputable peer-reviewed journals-- to draw a conclusion is original research.  And any biomedical or health statement should be sourced to secondary reviews (what you referred to above as literature reviews and meta-analyses) not primary studies, even when those studies are published in reputable peer-reviewed journals.  We need the conclusions to come from secondary review of primary sources.  If you have a question about any particular text I deleted, pls let me know so I can clarify, but if you step back through my edit summaries, you will see the reason for each edit.  I am not assuming anyone has bad intentions; when I say irresponsible, I am talking about text and our readers (not anyone's intentions).  We shouldn't leave text in the article that draws conclusions about treatments unless it is correctly sourced.  Many readers may access the article daily!   This is actually a very fine article overall (that fills a gap on Wikipedia-- in my writing on other articles, I have needed a link to parent management training), but we should get those remaining points cleared up quickly.  Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I am that "representative". I was thorough in my discussion about using data to come to a conclusion being the problem. But now you're accusing the students of OR? If they're using journal articles as sourcing then you'd really have to assert that their conclusion isn't what the literature has concluded and I get the impression you didn't read the material. What gives? Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Chris. I'm not sure "accusing" is the best word choice here.  The discussion of the use of a database link as a citation is above.  Clarification of the exact citations and sources used would help clear up the matter.  I hope you'll agree that talk page discussion is the best way to advance article improvement, and a valuable part of the Wikipedia experience for students!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I used the word "accuse" on purpose. I told the students to avoid original research and they understood that. I don't see how what they're doing violates WP:NOR. I agree, the citations need to be specific, it can't just be links to a database. I know the students are working to improve this but let's be careful in instruction. I'm glad there's a talk page discussion but I think you're starting to make this process harder than it needs to be. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "process". We have an article on one of the most-viewed websites in the world that parents with children in need will read (as someone who is familiar with the impact this topic has on families and children with neurological differences); Wikipedia articles must be as accurate as we mortals can make them, no matter by what "process" the article is produced. It's unclear to me, but your post above is reading as if we should apply a different standard to this article, and I hope you're not saying that our final publication standards are relaxed when students edit.  I am making the "process" as hard as it is for any topic that is published on one of the most-viewed websites in the world.    Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My post is asserting we impose the standard, not your standard. I want student editing to meet the same standards as every other article, obviously. When you swarm student editors with the myriad of changes you'd like to see it begins to look like ownership. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, Chris, but could you please address the content issues here, rather than your perception of editors and their motives? I've identified numerous issues that we should be able to get cleaned up without undue agida, and this article could advance on to a potentially successful GA nom, but you've not addressed any of the sourcing issues I've raised.  And this is a fairly good article on a topic that is important in the area I edit; perhaps we can get busy on the article instead of focusing on perceptions about editors? I am looking forward to beefing up several other neuropsych articles on my watchlist with information from this article and its sources-- it is not an unimportant topic, and it's nice that we have such a good start here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. My degree's in history. I'm vastly unqualified to attempt content changes on this. You went the GAR route because you're unhappy with the previous review; fine. GA criteria doesn't state the article has to be the best it can be. GA criteria is clear and fixed. If not for the fact these students had a grade riding on this I doubt they would've stuck around. I certainly would've bailed on any article if an editor started swarming it like this. I don't doubt you want to improve the article; you've done what I assume is a good job. The issue is, not everyone is going to tolerate this sort of approach. Wikipedia is losing editors and it probably stems from editors that don't play well with others. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no GA, GAN or GAR here, so you lost me. And the issues on this article are no different than on any article; students don't get exemptions from guideline and policy, and we benefit no one by leaving inadequately sourced medical information available to thousands of daily readers (this is an important topic for boatloads of parents, and one that has a significant impact on the lives of children at risk).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Specifically

 * PMT can be used for youth of all ages with a variety of behavioral problems, including those with diagnoses of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), pervasive developmental disorders (PDD)/autism spectrum (ASD), and intellectual disability (ID).

I removed that text from the lead because a) it is uncited, b) it is vague, and c) it is unsupported by secondary references anywhere in the text. (The lead should summarize the body of the article.) What we actually have in the text of the body of the article uses primary sources:
 * Adaptations of PMT have also been studied for children with pervasive developmental or autism spectrum disorders. In a randomized controlled trial of PMT for problem behavior associated with Asperger's syndrome, both a one-day workshop and a six-session individual format of PMT resulted in fewer problem behaviors and greater social interactions in the short-term. Similarly promising results were found for a PMT-based approach for children with various forms of ASD, with improved child behavior and positive parenting. Some PMT treatments have also been applied to children with comorbid intellectual disability (ID; formerly known as mental retardation), with some support for their effectiveness.  For example, a randomized controlled trial of young children with comorbid oppositional defiant disorder and intellectual disability showed that parent-child interactions and child disruptive behaviors improved in the treatment group relative to the control group.

If those primary sources can be replaced by secondary reviews, then we can readd something to the lead, which summarizes the text in the body of the article. But we should also clear up vagueness about just what behaviors were improved for each condition (that is, we shouldn't leave the impression that parent management training-- as effective as it is-- is going to diminish all of the symptoms of ADHD, for example. There is some vagueness in the article about specifically what measures of what behaviors are mentioned in sources).

Separately:


 * Various forms of PMT include such "brand-name" treatments as parent–child interaction therapy (PCIT), Incredible Years (IY), Positive Parenting Program (Triple P), and the Kazdin method. PMT is one of the most effective treatments available for disruptive behavior, particularly oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), and juvenile delinquency.

The "original research question?" (question mark is not an accusation, there is a clarification request for that source on this talk page) applies to the use of the PracticeWise database as a source. See discussion above. I did not remove the text because attached to it is a string of secondary sources. There is a problem, though, with the string of sources. Several of them are decades old; why are they used, and why does that statement require more than one source? We should reflect recent sources, and surely there are many supporting parent management training considering the strength of the recommendations reflected in this article. On the "brand name" treatments, we should have a specific secondary source mention of those treatments this helps avoid having anyone add a pet treatment somewhere down the line (as an advert, for example), based on a primary source or we often see even self-cited in such cases.) Which secondary sources specifically recommend each of those "brand names"? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The sources are old because the evidence for PMT is old. Norway adopted it as a national standard a decade ago. There is at least one decade old peer-reviewed paper where PMT is used as a gold standard benchmark positive control to evaluate another method. I bet even the peer-reviewed meta-analysis papers are old.  One can't get a peer-review paper published that rehashes old findings. Should newness be the standard? Tadamsmar (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When newer reviews contradict or better explain concepts in older reviews, yes, we should use the newer reviews (and there are plenty of them !!). As of now, important qualifiers about the efficacy of PMT are not included in the article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

, Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches may be helpful in understanding how to look up Pubmed Identifiers (PMIDs) in PubMed and ways to help determine based on info in the Pubmed link for each article whether a specific source is a primary document. Adding PMIDs to articles makes it much easier to determine when correct sourcing is used. In many cases with the sources you used, in spite of missing PMIDs, it is obvious that the sources are secondary, for example, when the title mentions it is a literature review or a meta-analysis. But it's not always clear from the title if a source is secondary or primary, so adding PMIDs helps. (See also WP:PSTS, WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS for biomedical or health statements.)  Please have a careful look at some of the dates on the sources listed below:  some of them are much too old for citing this text, considering the advances in studies of parent management training in the last 10 or 15 years (the studies at Yale wrt behaviors in children with Tourette syndrome complicated by comorbid conditions are quite recent, for example, and I see no mention of them here.)  Kazdin is 1997, Serketich is 1996, and Brightman is 1982, for example. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 12:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * for TS added. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Updated reviews
I have just searched PUBMED and added at "Further reading" three very recent (2013) secondary reviews that could be well used to clear up the sourcing here, and to expand the text to better explain exactly what behaviors are looked at with each condition:
 * 1)  Furlong 2013
 * 2)   Maliken 2013 (for neutrality, this content should probably be reflected)
 * 3) .  Michelson 2013 Per WP:MEDRS, we shouldn't really be citing articles to decades-old research-- even less so when we have three recent reviews. (I see Michelson was already used in the article-- I was typing Michaelson on search, and missed that.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I now have full copies of the three (2013) reviews above, as well
 * 1)  Swi 2011
 * 2)  Menting 2013

So, that is five very recent secondary reviews. Once I'm done with the flu, I'll update the article to reflect all five (from these sources, it looks like we are over-emphasizing the Oregon model, but we do have good statements about efficacy of individual programs). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Did that, but I don't have the full text of . Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Zwi query
The article lists Zwi 2012 as a source retrieved from the campbell collaboration: but PubMed lists: Is the date and other citation info correct in the article; are these referring to the same article? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Zwi, M., Jones, H., Thorgaard, C., York, A., & Dennis, J.A. (2012). Parent training interventions for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The Campbell Collaboration Library of Systematic Reviews, 8(2). doi:10.4073/csr.2012.2 Retrieved from http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/143/
 * Zwi 2011 a Cochrane review (See also Zwi 2009, a Cochrane article with free full text available).

OK, I found this PDF, which is a 2012, first published in 2011, publication, same authors, different title, same DOI. So, it looks like this is meant to be the citation, with the advantage that we can link to the free full text:, is that the intended citation? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Piquero
I've removed this text based on a sourcing concern. The cited source is not a review: it is a proposal to conduct a review. Has that review been published? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Although the majority of research on PMT has focused on treatment of existing problems, a review of early childhood prevention programs suggests that PMT is also effective for preventing later antisocial behavior and delinquency.

Moved for sourcing to secondary reviews
Adaptations of PMT have also been studied for children with pervasive developmental or autism spectrum disorders. In a randomized controlled trial of PMT for problem behavior associated with Asperger's syndrome, both a one-day workshop and a six-session individual format of PMT resulted in fewer problem behaviors and greater social interactions in the short-term. Similarly promising results were found for a PMT-based approach for children with various forms of ASD, with improved child behavior and positive parenting.

Some PMT treatments have also been applied to children with comorbid intellectual disability (ID; formerly known as mental retardation), with some support for their effectiveness. For example, a randomized controlled trial of young children with comorbid oppositional defiant disorder and intellectual disability showed that parent-child interactions and child disruptive behaviors improved in the treatment group relative to the control group.

Update
Per the discussion above, I have:
 * 1) Removed the Practice-Wise source and made the text conform to the recent reviews available and cited in the text (there are many many recent reviews, and we should be using them).  Moved in recent (2013) secondary reviews (note, there is a good deal of content in those reviews that is not reflected in this article, and I suggest the article is POV without them-- until those recent reviews are accounted for, this article should not move forward to GAN).
 * Because PracticeWise is only available to subscribing clinicians searching for research evidence, I agree that replacing it with more available sources is best.Kguan10 (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Removed the text about individual conditions, cited to primary sources, but added a secondary mention of PMT in Tourette syndrome.
 * 2) Removed some of the primary-sourced "Brand name" programs, and rearranged that text per Tadamsmar's suggestions.

Based on the recent (last five years) full-text reviews and abstracts that are available, my impression is that the article is somewhat biased, and before it moves through the GA nomination process, some of the info in the more recent reviews should be added.

This text still needs attention: We need third-party, independent secondary reviews endorsing these specific treatments; otherwise, we're just advertising. (It appears that the PMTO part is self-cited.)
 * Specific treatments that can be broadly characterized as PMT include but are not limited to Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT), Incredible Years (IY), Positive Parenting Program (Triple P), and Parent Management Training-Oregon Model (PMTO).

And this text: is outdated. The newer reviews (2013) deal with these topics. I do not have access to the full-text of all of the newer sources, so I haven't attempted an update, but from the abstracts of the 2013 reviews, it is apparent that this text can be updated. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To address this concern, a meta-analysis of PMT studies coded across "real-world" criteria found no significant differences in the effectiveness of PMT when it was delivered to clinic versus study-referred populations, in routine service versus research settings, or by non-specialist versus specialist therapists (i.e., those with direct links to the program developers). Despite these findings, some have called for increased attention to the impact of cultural diversity on PMT outcomes – especially given that parenting practices are deeply rooted in culture.  Other limitations of the existing research include that studies tend to focus on statistically significant rather than clinically significant change (i.e., whether the child's daily functioning actually improves), more data is needed on long-term sustainability of treatment effects,  and little is known about the processes or mechanisms through which PMT improves client outcomes.


 * This reference provides endorsement of all 4 of the specific treatments: http://www.cebc4cw.org/topic/parent-training/ - all 4 have the highest scientific rating Level 1. Not sure if this is the kind of reference that is preferred, but you can bore down to the peer-reviewed citations by clicking on the treatment name and then clicking on "detailed report" and "show relevant research".  There are 10 citations for PMTO, for instance. Some of those citations appear to be independent and third-party, and some must be independent and third-party since a CEBC Level 1 rating requires "Multiple Site Replication"  134.67.8.204 (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, 134; give me some time to get through that. Since I am not familiar with that program (CEBC), have the flu, and a muddled brain, I'll also ping WT:MED to see if folks there can look in here.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 134, I looked at the CEBC website, and on the one I checked (Parent-child interaction therapy PCIT), none of their sources rise to the level needed for Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. For PCIT, for example, they list three primary studies:,  (not Pubmed-indexed, which is not a good sign), and  (not a high quality study).  What we need are secondary reviews; all of those are primary sources, and several not even good ones.  If anyone has access to the full-text of any of the recent reviews that are included now in the article sources, they might have something to say about the specific programs. I did find and add secondary reviews on three of the four programs, and removed the self-citation on the fourth.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to the full text of a 2008 source that supports PMTO: http://pcit.phhp.ufl.edu/Literature/EybergNelsonBoggs%282008%29.pdf. I think this source meets the standards: recent (2008), secondary, and from a medical (or at least a clinical) journal.  It is not searchable (at least I could not search it with my tools), but if you scan the old-school way you will see that it supports "Parent Management Training Oregon" as well as other treatments. Tadamsmar (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . The addition of that review leaves the article, now, untagged and fully cited.  But there is still a good deal of vagueness in the article, with the newest reviews not well reflected.  I'd hesitate to use the Eyberg review to expand text or discuss efficacy (even though it's freely available), as Eyberg was the originator of PCIT, that source is fairly old now, and we have several newer, independent reviews. What the article needs next is expansion based on the many newer sources, to discuss specifically what populations are served and underserved (minorities and socioeconomic status comes up in recent reviews) by PMT, and for which conditions (discuss specifics of ADHD, ASD, ODD, conduct disorder, etc based on reviews), and with which limitations (research methodology, etc).  From the review abstracts, we may need to also discuss cost effectiveness.  If I can get hold of some of the full text of the newer reviews, I can work on that (after I get over the flu).  Thanks again, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)