University of Amsterdam.
Utrecht University.
Dev Psychopathol. 2018 Oct;30(4):1535-1540. doi: 10.1017/S0954579418000755.
In their commentary, Beauchaine and Slep (2018) raise important issues regarding research on behavioral parenting training (BPT). In this reply we highlight key points of agreement and respond to issues that we feel require clarification. BPT has been repeatedly proven effective in decreasing disruptive child behavior (also in the work of our research team). Yet, there is much to learn about for whom and how BPT is effective. Specifically, assessing the how (i.e., mediation) comes with many challenges. One of these challenges is taking into account the timeline of change, and being able to infer causal mechanisms of change. We argue that cross-lagged panel models (which we, and many other scholars, used) are a valid and valuable method for testing mediation. At the same time, our results raise important questions, specifically about the timing and form of expected changes in parenting and child behavior after BPT. For example, are these changes linear and gradual or do they happen more suddenly? To select the appropriate design, assessment tools, and statistical models to test mediation, we need to state detailed hypotheses on what changes when. An important next step might be to assess multiple putative mediators on different timescales, not only before and after, but specifically also during BPT.
在他们的评论中,Beauchaine 和 Slep(2018)提出了关于行为养育培训(BPT)研究的重要问题。在这个回复中,我们强调了我们同意的关键点,并回应了我们认为需要澄清的问题。BPT 已被反复证明可以有效减少儿童的破坏性行为(我们研究团队的工作也是如此)。然而,还有很多关于 BPT 对谁有效和如何有效的问题需要研究。具体来说,评估“如何”(即中介作用)存在许多挑战。其中一个挑战是要考虑到变化的时间线,并能够推断出变化的因果机制。我们认为,交叉滞后面板模型(我们和许多其他学者都使用过)是一种测试中介作用的有效和有价值的方法。同时,我们的结果提出了一些重要的问题,特别是关于 BPT 后父母养育和儿童行为的预期变化的时间和形式。例如,这些变化是线性和渐进的,还是更突然发生的?为了选择适当的设计、评估工具和统计模型来测试中介作用,我们需要详细说明当什么变化时的假设。一个重要的下一步可能是在不同的时间尺度上评估多个潜在的中介因素,不仅是在 BPT 之前和之后,而且特别是在 BPT 期间。