1. Figure 1. Mean scores for Child Deviance controlled Figure 2. Mean scores for Child Affect controlled by pre-intervention scores. by pre-intervention scores. Figure 3. Mean scores for Non-Compliance controlled Figure 4. Mean scores for Compliance controlled by pre-intervention scores. by pre-intervention scores. Discussion The fine-grained analyses carried out did not find gender to be a significant moderator of children’s behavioural response to the IY intervention once pre-intervention scores were controlled. This was despite the suggestion of a gender difference in initial exploration of the Hutchings et al. (2007) data, which had similar findings to those implied by Figures 1 and 4. These results indicate that gender does not moderate the effect of the IY programme on child behaviour. Evidence suggests, however, that child gender is a marker for behavioural severity, which is a moderator for the efficacy of BPT programmes. It is possible that gender does moderate children’s response to the intervention, but that the DPICS is not sensitive enough to detect gender differences. Limitations: Boys outnumbered girls 13:9 in the sample, resulting in less statistical power in analyses concerning gender. Implications: While this study supports the use of the IY programme for both genders, future research is needed to explore gender as a potential moderator of BPT intervention efficacy. This may require careful consideration of the measures used to assess efficacy, and further exploration of how gender may moderate BPT. Measures: The DPICS has shown reliability and sensitivity towards intervention change (Webster-Stratton, 1998). It has three relevant categories, each composed of a number of individual behaviours (child-relevant categories only reported, see Table 1). Results Comparison of individual pre- and post- behaviours by gender Following tests of homogeneity (in which the majority of individual behaviours met assumptions), a series of analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were used to test the assumption that boys and girls had a differential response to the intervention. Pre-intervention observation (DPICS) scores were controlled while post-intervention scores were compared by gender and intervention group. These analyses indicated that gender did not have a significant moderating effect on the impact of the intervention for any of the individual behaviours, or behavioural categories. Table 1. DPICS individual behaviours controlled for by pre-intervention scores and analysed by condition and gender Background Behavioural Parent Training (BPT) programmes have been shown to be effective interventions for children’s oppositional behaviour (e.g. Wyatt Kaminski, Valle, Filene & Boyle, 2008), and are recommended by the NICE guidelines for conduct disorder (NICE & SCIE, 2007). As BPT is not effective for all participants, it is important to clarify what factors moderate its efficacy, in order to target clients who will likely benefit, and adapt existing programmes or support to suit those who are less likely to benefit. Some variables which appear to impact on the efficacy of parent-training are socio-economic status, age of parent or child, maternal mental health, parent relationship status, and severity of problem behaviour (Lundahl, Risser, & Lovejoy, 2006). As a marker of oppositional behaviour severity, child gender may also moderate programme efficacy, but a review of studies suggests that gender was not a moderator of efficacy (McMahon, Wells & Kotler, 2006). Hutchings et al. (2007) examined the efficacy of the Incredible Years (IY) programme in reducing children’s oppositional behaviour. Gardner, Hutchings, Bywater, & Whitaker’s (2010) examination of the data found child gender to be a moderator according to parental report, with boys showing greater treatment response than girls. An initial post-study exploration of the main categories of the observational measure used (Dyadic Parent- Child Interaction Coding System; DPICS; Eyberg & Robinson, 1981) indicated that while boys’ behaviour improved, girls’ behaviour trended towards lesser or minimal improvements. This was not a fine-grained analysis, nor was it reported in detail. As such, this study will examine in greater detail the gender differences indicated by the Hutchings et al. (2007) observational data. Does gender moderate the efficacy of IY parent training? Methods: Participants: 132 parents of 78 boys and 54 girls aged 36 -59 months who scored over the clinical cut-off for child problem behaviour on the Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory (ECBI; Eyberg, 1980) were randomised into intervention (n=86), and waitlist control (n=46). Both conditions were used in analysis. Does Child Gender Moderate the Effect of Parent Training on Child Behaviour? Naomi S. Simcock, Judy Hutchings, and Eleanor Lane References Eyberg, S.M. (1980) Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 9, 27. Eyberg SM, & Robinson EA. (1981). Dyadic parent-child interaction coding system. Seattle, WA: Parenting Clinic, University of Washington. Gardner, F., Hutchings, J., Bywater, T. & Whitaker, C. (2010). Who benefits and how does it work? Moderators and mediators of outcome in an effectiveness trial of a parenting intervention. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39, 568-580. Hutchings, J., Bywater, T., Daley, D., Gardner, F., Whitaker, C., Jones, K., Eames, C., & Edwards, R.T. (2007). Parenting intervention in Sure Start services for children at risk of developing conduct disorder: pragmatic randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 334, 678. Lundahl, B., Risser, H.J., & Lovejoy, M.C. (2006). A meta-analysis of parent-training: Moderators and follow-up effects. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 86-104. McMahon, R. J., Wells, K. C., & Kotler, J. S. (2006). Conduct problems. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Treatment of childhood disorders (3rd ed., pp. 137–268). New York: Guilford. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence & Social Care Institute for Excellence (2007). Parent-training/education programmes in the management of children with conduct disorder. NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance 102, London. Webster-Stratton, C. (1998). Preventing conduct problems in head start children: strengthening parenting competencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 715 – 730. Wyatt Kaminski, J., Valle, L.A., Filene, J.H., & Boyle, C.L. (2008). A meta-analytic review of components associated with parent training programme effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 567-589. DPICS Observed Behaviours FSignificance Behavioural CategoryCHILD DEVIANCEF(1,127) = 2.36p >.05 Composed of Individual Behaviours Cry/Whine/YellF(1,127) = 3.03 Did not pass tests of homogeneity p >.05 Smart TalkF(1,127) = 1.17 p >.05 DestructiveF(1,127) =.30 p >.05 Physical NegativeF(1,127) =.00 Did not pass tests of homogeneity p >.05 Behavioural CategoryCHILD AFFECTF(1,127) =.55p >.05 Composed of Individual Behaviours Physical WarmthF(1,127) =.08 p >.05 Positive Affect Non-VerbalF(1,127) =.12 Did not pass tests of homogeneity p >.05 Positive Affect VerbalF(1,127) = 1.98 p >.05 Behavioural CategoryCOMPLIANCEF(1,127) = 2.45p >.05 NON-COMPLIANCEF(1,127) =.04p >.05 Composed of Individual Behaviours Compliance Indirect Commands F(1,127) = 1.83 p >.05 Non-Compliance Indirect commands F(1,127) =.73 p >.05 Compliance Direct CommandsF(1,127) =.99 p >.05 Non-Compliance Direct Commands F(1,127) =.18 p >.05