Externalizing Behaviors during Infancy in Latine: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Greighson M. Rowe
,
Daniel M. Bagner
,
Nicole E. Lorenzo

Externalizing behavior problems are among the top mental health concerns in early childhood, and many parenting interventions have been developed to address this issue. To better understand predictors of parenting intervention outcomes in high-risk families, this secondary data analysis evaluated the moderating effect of cumulative risk on child externalizing behaviors, parenting skills, and intervention dropout after completion of a home-based adaptation of the child-directed interaction phase of parent–child interaction therapy (PCIT) called the Infant Behavior Program (IBP).

  • child interaction therapy
  • externalizing behavior
  • parenting interventions

1. Introduction

Externalizing behavior problems in early childhood are a highly relevant public health concern, with disruptive behavior disorders being the most common reason for referral to child mental health clinics in the United States [1][2]. Common externalizing behavior disorders, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiant disorder, have been associated with increased risks of adverse outcomes in academic achievement, comorbidity with other mental illnesses and substance abuse, and criminality [3]. In addition, populations with marginalized identities and systemic disadvantages are reported to have higher rates of disruptive behavior disorders and have higher likelihoods of comorbid psychosis, depression, and substance abuse [4]. The non-transient nature of infant–toddler behavioral problems highlights the importance of intervention as early as possible to effectively reduce the need for more intensive treatments later in life [5][6].

2. Parent–Child Interaction Therapy

A unifying theme across the theories of child development is the critical role of the primary caregiver. With this in mind, one of the most common methods for managing childhood behavioral problems is parenting interventions. Numerous parenting intervention programs have been developed that have demonstrated efficacy in the reduction of externalizing behaviors [7][8], with parent–child interaction therapy (PCIT) being one of the most highly researched and established evidence-based treatments for children who display disruptive behaviors as young as 3 years old [7]. The structure of the original intervention consists of weekly, hour-long, in-lab/clinic sessions across two phases of treatment. In the child-directed interaction (CDI) phase of treatment, parents are coached on improving the parent–child relationship during child-led play by increasing external displays of parental warmth and decreasing attention to child tantrums and negative behaviors. Therapists coach parents to use various do skills (i.e., praising appropriate behaviors, imitating appropriate play, etc.) and don’t skills, such as acknowledging inappropriate behavior, giving commands, asking questions, and being critical. To reach the skill criteria of the CDI-phase, caregivers must exhibit a sufficient number of do skills and a minimal number of don’t skills before moving on to the second phase of PCIT: parent-directed interaction (PDI). In the PDI phase, therapists teach caregivers to efficiently and appropriately give commands and increase child compliance, and treatment is considered complete once caregivers have achieved the skill criteria of both phases.

3. Dropout and Differential Responses to PCIT

Despite their effectiveness, the dropout rates of parenting programs are high [9][10], and sociodemographic risk factors increase the likelihood of a poorer response to PCIT [11]. A limitation of the traditional PCIT training model is the strict skill criteria, which can take a significant amount of time to meet. In one large study, 25% of families who graduated from PCIT took an average of 20.5 weekly sessions to achieve the skill criteria, with a range of 5 to 71 sessions [12]. In ethnic minority populations, it has been suggested that the timeline is even longer (i.e., 18 weeks longer) due to cultural differences in the adoption of the Western norms that PCIT tends to encourage [13][14], adding another layer of difficulty for families to achieve skill criteria status.
To increase the accessibility and effectiveness of PCIT and decrease dropout rates, many variations have been developed to reduce the time commitment and incorporate more culturally relevant methods. Adaptations are especially relevant given the demonstrated differences in skill acquisition and the logistical barriers of attending an indefinite number of sessions. For example, Spanish-speaking Latina mothers were found to use significantly more don’t skills than English-speaking Latina mothers post-treatment and during follow-up [15]. Additionally, Spanish-speaking PCIT therapists have been found to significantly differ in their total verbalizations and their use of directive and responsive coaching in comparison to English-speaking PCIT therapists [16][17]. One way to address the logistical barriers of completing traditional PCIT is by focusing treatment on the child-directed interaction (CDI) phase of PCIT, halving the required time commitment. The CDI phase alone has shown effectiveness in ethnically diverse and low socioeconomic status samples in the United States [14][18][19], as well as with Latine toddlers as young as 12 months with externalizing behavior concerns [20].

4. Individual Risk Factors of Intervention Response

Despite efforts to increase engagement with PCIT, various risk factors have been identified that reduce the effects of the intervention, many of which can be traced to systemic disadvantages, disproportionate stressors, and individual characteristics. For example, low socioeconomic status (SES) and maternal education are significant predictors of dropout from behavioral parenting interventions [21], and maternal intellectual functioning predicted 83 percent of families that dropped out of PCIT [13]. In addition to low SES, single-parent status and negative life stress predicted over 70 percent of poor parenting intervention outcomes one year after treatment [22][23]. Parental stress, in particular, has received recent attention due to its positive associations with child internalizing and externalizing behavioral concerns [24][25] and the interaction between mother–father stress and the risk of child abuse [26].
Identifying with a racial or ethnic minority status similarly places people at a higher risk for adverse outcomes. For example, Black youth are more likely to be diagnosed with externalizing behavioral disorders in comparison to White youth, who are more likely to be diagnosed with adjustment disorders [27]. Similar discriminant patterns are evident in the diagnosis of learning disabilities and other disorders relevant to child development in Black and Latine populations [28][29].
When considering disparities, it is also important to acknowledge that risk factors are related to one another. For example, low SES and ethnic minority status are more likely to co-occur in Hispanic and Black populations earning USD 12,000 and USD 22,000 less than the average median household income in the United States, respectively [30]. This finding aligns with prior research showing that low socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnic minority group membership predicted nearly 73% of dropouts, while low SES and White identification predicted 80% of treatment completion [21]. Language barriers also pose significant obstacles to treatment engagement for Latine populations seeking health care [31].

5. Cumulative Risk and Intervention Outcomes

Although most prior research examined the effect of each individual risk factor independently [18], there is evidence for better prediction of treatment outcomes and dropouts by combining individual risk factors of adverse treatment outcomes into one cumulative risk index. One such study found that participants with higher cumulative risk scores were significantly more likely to drop out from PCIT and be less responsive to treatment [11]. Another study on cumulative risk in parenting intervention outcomes did not find a significant relationship between cumulative risk and parent-reported problem behaviors after receiving the Family Check-Up intervention [32]. However, this study included children who were at risk for behavior problems, not those that were already exhibiting problematic behaviors. Additionally, no adaptations were made to improve accessibility and generalizability to diverse populations. Other studies have found a positive relationship between cumulative risk and child externalizing behavior such that higher levels of risk were associated with more externalizing behaviors [33], and multiple stressor groupings of 4 or higher predicted higher rates of externalizing behavior concerns [34].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/bs13050363

References

  1. Loeber, R.; Green, S.M.; Lahey, B.B.; Frick, P.J.; McBurnett, K. Findings on Disruptive Behavior Disorders from the First Decade of the Developmental Trends Study. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev. 2000, 3, 37–60.
  2. Nock, M.K.; Kazdin, A.E.; Hiripi, E.; Kessler, R.C. Prevalence, subtypes, and correlates of DSM-IV conduct disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Psychol. Med. 2006, 36, 699–710.
  3. Erskine, H.E.; Norman, R.E.; Ferrari, A.J.; Chan GC, K.; Copeland, W.E.; Whiteford, H.A.; Scott, J.G. Long-Term Outcomes of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Conduct Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2016, 55, 841–850.
  4. Patel, R.S.; Amaravadi, N.; Bhullar, H.; Lekireddy, J.; Win, H. Understanding the Demographic Predictors and Associated Comorbidities in Children Hospitalized with Conduct Disorder. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2018, 8, 80.
  5. Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J.; van IJzendoorn, M.H.; Juffer, F. Less is more: Meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychol. Bull. 2003, 129, 195–215.
  6. Briggs-gowan, M.J.; Carter, A.S.; Bosson-heenan, J.; Guyer, A.E.; Horwitz, S.M. Are Infant-Toddler Social-Emotional and Behavioral Problems Transient? J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2006, 45, 849–858.
  7. Eyberg, S.M.; Nelson, M.M.; Boggs, S.R. Evidence-Based Psychosocial Treatments for Children and Adolescents with Disruptive Behavior. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 2008, 37, 215–237.
  8. Tully, L.A.; Hunt, C. Brief Parenting Interventions for Children at Risk of Externalizing Behavior Problems: A Systematic Review. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2016, 25, 705–719.
  9. Mitchell, A.E.; Morawska, A.; Mihelic, M. A systematic review of parenting interventions for child chronic health conditions. J. Child Health Care 2020, 24, 603–628.
  10. Prinz, R.J.; Miller, G.E. Family-Based Treatment for Childhood Antisocial Behavior: Experimental Influences on Dropout and Engagement. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1994, 62, 645–650.
  11. Bagner, D.M.; Graziano, P.A. Barriers to Success in Parent Training for Young Children with Developmental Delay the Role of Cumulative Risk. Behav. Modif. 2013, 37, 356–377.
  12. Lieneman, C.C.; Quetsch, L.B.; Theodorou, L.L.; Newton, K.A.; McNeil, C.B. Reconceptualizing attrition in Parent-Child Interaction Therapy: “Dropouts” demonstrate impressive improvements. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2019, 12, 543–555.
  13. Fernandez, M.; Eyberg, S.M. Predicting Treatment and Follow-Up Attrition in Parent–Child Interaction Therapy. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2009, 37, 431–441.
  14. McCabe, K.M.; Yeh, M. Parent–Child Interaction Therapy for Mexican Americans: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 2009, 38, 753–759.
  15. Ramos, G.; Giovanni Ramos Giovanni Ramos Blizzard, A.M.; Barroso, N.E.; Bagner, D.M. Parent Training and Skill Acquisition and Utilization among Spanish- and English-Speaking Latino Families. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2018, 27, 268–279.
  16. Heymann, P.; Heflin, B.H.; Bagner, D.M. Effect of Therapist Coaching Statements on Parenting Skills in a Brief Parenting Intervention for Infants. Behav. Modif. 2021, 46, 691–705.
  17. Green Rosas, Y.; McCabe, K.M.; Zerr, A.; Yeh, M.; Gese, K.; Barnett, M.L. Examining English- and Spanish-Speaking Therapist Behaviors in Parent–Child Interaction Therapy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4474.
  18. Danko, C.M.; Garbacz, L.L.; Budd, K.S. Outcomes of Parent–Child Interaction Therapy in an urban community clinic: A comparison of treatment completers and dropouts. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2016, 60, 42–51.
  19. Fernandez, M.; Butler, A.M.; Eyberg, S.M. Treatment Outcome for Low Socioeconomic Status African American Families in Parent-Child Interaction Therapy: A Pilot Study. Child Fam. Behav. Ther. 2011, 33, 32–48.
  20. Bagner, D.M.; Coxe, S.; Hungerford, G.M.; Garcia, D.; Barroso, N.E.; Hernandez, J.; Rosa-Olivares, J. Behavioral Parent Training in Infancy: A Window of Opportunity for High-Risk Families. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2016, 44, 901–912.
  21. Lavigne, J.V.; LeBailly, S.A.; Gouze, K.R.; Binns, H.J.; Keller, J.; Pate, L. Predictors and Correlates of Completing Behavioral Parent Training for the Treatment of Oppositional Defiant Disorder in Pediatric Primary Care. Behav. Ther. 2010, 41, 198–211.
  22. Webster-Stratton, C. Predictors of treatment outcome in parent training for conduct disordered children. Behav. Ther. 1985, 16, 223–243.
  23. Webster-Stratton, C.; Hammond, M.A. Predictors of treatment outcome in parent training for families with conduct problem children. Behav. Ther. 1990, 21, 319–337.
  24. Barroso, N.E.; Mendez, L.; Graziano, P.A.; Bagner, D.M. Parenting Stress through the Lens of Different Clinical Groups: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2018, 46, 449–461.
  25. Jones, J.H.; Call, T.A.; Wolford, S.N.; McWey, L.M. Parental Stress and Child Outcomes: The Mediating Role of Family Conflict. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2021, 30, 746–756.
  26. Caravita, S.C.S.; Miragoli, S.; Balzarotti, S.; Camisasca, E.; Di Blasio, P. Parents’ perception of child behavior, parenting stress, and child abuse potential: Individual and partner influences. Child Abus. Negl. 2018, 84, 146–156.
  27. Feisthamel, K.P.; Schwartz, R.C. Differences in Mental Health Counselors’ Diagnoses Based on Client Race: An Investigation of Adjustment, Childhood, and Substance-Related Disorders. J. Ment. Health Couns. 2009, 31, 47–59.
  28. Schwartz, R.C.; Blankenship, D.M. Racial disparities in psychotic disorder diagnosis: A review of empirical literature. World J. Psychiatry 2014, 4, 133–140.
  29. Shifrer, D. Clarifying the Social Roots of the Disproportionate Classification of Racial Minorities and Males with Learning Disabilities. Sociol. Q. 2018, 59, 384–406.
  30. U.S. Census Bureau. Real Median Household Income by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1967 to 2020; U.S. Census Bureau: Suitland, MD, USA, 2021. Available online: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2021/demo/p60-273/figure2.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2023).
  31. Timmins, C.L. The impact of language barriers on the health care of Latinos in the United States: A review of the literature and guidelines for practice. J. Midwifery Women’s Health 2002, 47, 80–96.
  32. Gardner, F.; Connell, A.M.; Trentacosta, C.J.; Shaw, D.S.; Dishion, T.J.; Wilson, M.N. Moderators of outcome in a brief family-centered intervention for preventing early problem behavior. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2009, 77, 543–553.
  33. Ackerman, B.P.; Brown, E.D.; Izard, C.E. The Relations between Contextual Risk, Earned Income, and the School Adjustment of Children from Economically Disadvantaged Families. Dev. Psychol. 2004, 40, 204–216.
  34. Shaw, D.S.; Winslow, E.B.; Owens, E.B.; Hood, N. Young children’s adjustment to chronic family adversity: A longitudinal study of low-income families. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 1998, 37, 545–553.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback