Stepping Stones Triple P-Positive Parenting Program for children with disability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Stepping Stones Triple P gives medium, solid improvements in child behavior and parent well-being across disabilities, but does not change videotaped parenting actions.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Matson et al. (2013) pooled 12 smaller studies of Stepping Stones Triple P. The program teaches parents positive parenting skills in five stepped levels. Families had children with mixed disabilities, not just autism. The team looked at child behavior, parent stress, and observed parenting skills.
What they found
The meta-analysis showed medium, reliable gains in child problems and most parent measures. Parent stress dropped and confidence rose. Yet videotaped parenting behaviors did not improve. The program helps how parents feel and how kids act, but not how parents look on camera.
How this fits with other research
Kasperzack et al. (2020) extends these results. They gave the same program in group format to 24 autism-only families and saw large behavior drops. Schneider et al. (2006) is a predecessor: parents of kids with ASD already rated the strategies acceptable seven years earlier.
Beqiraj et al. (2022) includes SSTP trials in a wider PBS review. Both find positive effects, but PBS covers school settings while SSTP is home-based. The findings agree; the scopes differ.
McIntyre (2019) looks similar on paper—group parent training for developmental disabilities—but tests a different program (IYPT-DD). Both cut challenging behavior, showing the method, not the brand, may drive success.
Why it matters
You can offer Stepping Stones Triple P with confidence across disability labels. Expect moderate child and parent gains, but do not wait for perfect parenting clips. If you serve autism-only groups, the shorter group format from Kasperzack et al. (2020) saves time. Pair SSTP with stress-reduction extras if you want to move observed skills, not just parent reports.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a brief parent stress check to your intake; if high, keep SSTP but bolt on a stress-management module.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the treatment effects of a behavioral family intervention, Stepping Stones Triple P (SSTP) for parents of children with disabilities. SSTP is a system of five intervention levels of increasing intensity and narrowing population reach. Twelve studies, including a total of 659 families, met eligibility criteria. Studies needed to have evaluated SSTP, be written in English or German, contribute original data, and have sufficient data for analyses. No restrictions were placed on study design. A series of meta-analyses were performed for seven different outcome categories. Analyses were conducted on the combination of all four levels of SSTP for which evidence exists (Levels 2-5), and were also conducted separately for each level of SSTP. Significant moderate effect sizes were found for all levels of SSTP for reducing child problems, the primary outcome of interest. On secondary outcomes, significant overall effect sizes were found for parenting styles, parenting satisfaction and efficacy, parental adjustment, parental relationship, and observed child behaviors. No significant treatment effects were found for observed parenting behaviors. Moderator analyses showed no significant differences in effect sizes across the levels of SSTP intervention, with the exception of child observations. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed. Analyses suggested that publication bias and selective reporting bias were not likely to have heavily influenced the findings. The overall evidence base supported the effectiveness of SSTP as an intervention for improving child and parent outcomes in families of children with disabilities. Limitations and future research directions are discussed.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2013 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.01.022