Fanning 2007.

Methods	Parallel randomised controlled trial.
Participants	Participants: families recruited across 15‐month period from four local Head Start preschools. Sex: both mothers and fathers (no further information). Age of parents: mean 31 years intervention; mean 27 years control. Unit of allocation: individual family. Number randomised: 40 families (18 intervention; 22 control). Number used in analysis: 19 families (10 intervention; 9 control). Country & setting: USA; multi‐site (n=4); recruited from community settings: intervention delivered in the community. Inclusion criteria: families with children attending local Head Start preschools; aged 3 to 5 years; from economically disadvantaged backgrounds; monolingual; right‐handed. Exclusion criteria: taking psychopharmacological medication for ADD, ADHD, seizures or depression. Ethnicity: not stated. Baseline characteristics: education: mean 13.29 years (intervention group) and 12.93 years (control group); maternal education: mean 13.21 years (intervention); mean 12.80 years (control).
Interventions	Two conditions: 'Success in Parenting Preschoolers' (SIP2); wait‐list control. Duration of intervention: 8 weeks. Length of follow‐up: no follow‐up.
Outcomes	Stress (Ability and Confidence Rating Questionnaire).
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Information reported insufficient for a judgement to be made. We requested clarification from the trial investigators, but no further information was available at the time this review was prepared.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Information reported insufficient for a judgement to be made. We requested clarification from the trial investigators, but no further information was available at the time this review was prepared.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Participants	High risk	Review authors judge that it would not be possible to fully blind participants in this type of study, and found no indication of any specific additional measures taken to reduce the risk of bias that might result from differential behaviours by participants.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Personnel	Low risk	Trial investigators report that trial personnel were blind to allocation status of participants (page 69).
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Outcome assessors	Low risk	Trial investigators report that outcome assessors were blind to allocation status of participants (page 69).
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Data for 4/18 (22.2%) were missing from the intervention condition (1 unwilling to attend in evenings; 1 needing to work in evenings, 1 evicted and moved to new area; 1 reason unknown), and for 8/22 (36.3%) from the control condition. Overall attrition was 19% at post‐intervention. Review authors considered the numbers of missing data not closely balanced between conditions. Since reasons for attrition not provided for control group, it is not possible to  judge whether the reasons for the missing data differ substantially across the groups. We requested clarification from the trial investigators, but no further information was available at the time this review was prepared.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Review authors judge that the published report includes all expected outcomes, including those that were pre‐specified.
Other bias	Low risk	The study appears to be free of other sources of bias.