Research on parent training: shortcomings and remedies.

Thompson et al. (1986) looked at every parent-training paper they could find. They did not run new kids or parents. They read, compared, and graded what was out there.

The team asked three questions. Do studies teach useful daily skills? Do kids get to practice during training? Do parents still use the skills months later?

Most trials stopped at ‘mom or dad used the skill in the clinic.’ Few checked if the child ate, slept, or played better at home. Almost none tracked long-term change.

The authors list easy fixes. Add real-life goals. Let the child try the skill during sessions. Measure what happens weeks and months later.

Lee et al. (2012) later pooled 40 ADHD trials. Their meta-analysis shows the same gap T et al. flagged: big gains right after training, small or gone later.

Matson et al. (2009) wrote a fresh narrative review 23 years later. They still see weak long-term data, proving the 1986 warning stayed true.

Liu et al. (2020) found parent training helps Chinese kids with autism, but again most studies are short and sloppy. The old critique still fits today.

Next time you write a parent-training goal, add a real-life probe. ‘Parent will use three-step prompting during dinner for five nights and log bites accepted.’ Collect that log at one, four, and twelve weeks. One extra column on your data sheet answers the 1986 call and shows funders you track what counts.