Table 4

Papers giving paternally-reported ECBI Intensity scores.

Author

Significantbenefit (P <0.05)?

n1

mean1

sd1

n2

mean2

sd2


Bodenmann et al. [32]a

No

50

109.2

18.5

50

110.1

25.2

Connell et al. [50]

Yes

11

154.55

17.44

12

111.0

12.41

Hahlweg et al. [51]*

No

16

10.7

7.0

18

7.7

5.1

Hahlweg et al. [13]*

No

57

9.3

7.2

141

10.2

6.9

Markie-Dadds & Sanders [56]

No

NOT REPORTED

Morawska & Sanders [61]

No

24

111.57

20.41

49

106.07

24.37

Sanders et al. [65]

Yes

71

127.34

22.39

184

113.13

27.34


aECBI subscale data reported in [32] were assumed to have been transposed, and are corrected here. In this paper attrition rates at the post-treatment assessment are unknown and we assumed they remained constant. n1, mean1 and sd1 are, respectively, group size, mean and standard deviation for the control groups, and n2, mean2 and sd2 are the corresponding figures for the Triple-P intervention groups. Means and standard deviations are for ECBI-I subscale data, apart from the two papers marked with an asterisk, where the CBCL-E was reported. No paternally-reported data are tabulated in Markie-Dadds and Sanders [47], but there is a statement that 'Analyses of father-reported measures of child behavior failed to produce any significant effects.' CBCL-E, Child Behavior Checklist - Externalizing scale; ECBI-I, Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory - Intensity scale.

Wilson et al. BMC Medicine 2012 10:130   doi:10.1186/1741-7015-10-130

Open Data