Table 1.
Summary of PCIT effectiveness studies
| Reference | N | Child gender | Setting | Study design | Follow-up time | Primary findings | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abrahamse et al (2015)139 | 45 families | 58% male | Community mental health center in Amsterdam | RCT: PCIT or Family Creative Therapy | Posttreatment and 6-month follow-up | Significant reduction in ECBI intensity scores for PCIT group but not Family Creative Therapy group | Crossover between treatments complicated the intent-to-treat analysis |
| Bjørseth et al (2016)33 | 81 families | 64% male | Child and adolescent mental health specialty clinics in Norway | RCT: PCIT or treatment as usual | 6- and 18-month follow-up | ECBI intensity scores improved more for PCIT group (d=0.64) than the TAU group according to maternal report | No difference in ECBI scores for each group based on paternal report |
| Budd et al (2011)140 | 4 families, 5 children | 100% male | Community mental health center in urban area in the US | Pre–post case studies | Posttreatment only | Reductions in ECBI intensity scores from the clinical range (pre) to below clinical (post) for all but one child who still demonstrated reductions but whose pretreatment scores were below the clinical cutoff | One family had two children who were both included in treatment |
| Danko et al (2016)16 | 52 families | 71% male | Community mental health center in urban area in the US | Pre–post | Posttreatment only | Significant reduction in ECBI intensity scores for (d=2.30) | |
| Foley et al (2016)28 | 44 families | 66% male | Community outreach organization in the US | RCT: group PCIT or group treatment as usual | Posttreatment only | Greater reductions in ECBI scores for PCIT group than TAU group (d=0.91) | |
| Galanter et al (2012)141 | 83 families | Not reported | In-home services delivered by community agency therapists in the US | Pre–post | Posttreatment only | Significant reduction in ECBI intensity scores for (d=1.22) | |
| Hakman et al (2009)19 | 22 families | 64% male | Child welfare agency in the US | Pre–post | Posttreatment only | Increases in positive parental responses and decreases in negative parental responses as measured by the DPICS | Focus was on parenting behavior rather than child behavior because this was a sample of families with histories of physical abuse |
| Keeshin et al (2015)27 | 8 mother–child dyads | Not reported | Domestic violence shelter in the US | Pre–post | Posttreatment only | Significant increases in positive verbalizations and decreases in negative verbalizations as measured by the DPICS | Half of the mothers spoke Spanish as their primary language and required the use of an interpreter. Most mothers had more than one child, although only children within the standard PCIT age range were included in treatment |
| Lanier et al (2014)20 | 120 families | 64% male | Child welfare and community mental health agencies in the US | Pre–post | Follow-up ranged from 13 to 40 months | Rate of substantiated abuse/neglect reports following PCIT was 1.6% | No control group was included in the study, but other studies have reported recidivism rates ~50% |
| Leung et al (2009)34 | 110 families | 67% male | Hospital-based clinic in Hong Kong | RCT: PCIT or waitlist control | Posttreatment and 6-month follow-up | Significant reduction in ECBI scores from pre- to posttreatment (d=1.59) and through 6-month follow-up (h2=0.89) for PCIT group but not control group | |
| Lyon et al (2010)17 | 14 families | 64% male | Community mental health center in underserved urban area in the US | Pre–post | Posttreatment only | Four families met standard PCIT completion criteria and showed reductions in ECBI scores. Noncompleters also showed reductions in ECBI scores but to a lesser extent | |
| Mersky et al (2016)98 | 102 foster families | Not reported | Foster homes in the US | RCT: brief PCIT, extended PCIT, waitlist control | Posttreatment only | Both PCIT groups demonstrated a reduction in behavior problems compared to waitlist control group | |
| Naik-Polan et al (2008)21 | 4 mother–child dyads | 63% male | Child welfare outpatient clinic in the US | Pre–post | Posttreatment only | Increases in positive parental responses and decreases in negative parental responses as measured on the DPICS | No data were collected on child behaviors |
| N’zi et al (2016)31 | 14 families | 50% male | Participants in a kinship care program in the US, services delivered in a local library by graduate student therapists | RCT: PCIT CDI only or waitlist control | Posttreatment and 3-month follow-up | Significant decreases in child externalizing problems as measured by the CBCL (d=1.04) for the PCIT group but not the waitlist control group | This intervention only included the CDI phase, not the full PCIT protocol |
| Pade et al (2006)25 | 73 families | 70% male | Managed care company in the US | Pre–post | Posttreatment and 5–6-year follow-up (n=23) | Significant reduction in ECBI scores from pre- to posttreatment. 65% of the follow-up sample remained below the clinical cutoff at long-term follow-up. | Substantially modified version of PCIT was used in this study |
| Rait (2012)35 | 30 families | 66% male | In-home sessions provided by paraprofessionals in the UK | Pre–post | Posttreatment and 2-month follow-up | Significant reduction in ECBI scores from pre- to both posttreatment and 2-month follow-up | Substantially modified version of PCIT was used in this study |
| Scudder et al (2014)26 | 71 incarcerated women | n/a | Female state correctional facility in the US | RCT: PCIT-based parenting class or standard parenting class | Posttreatment only | Participants in PCIT-based parenting class showed higher levels of positive attention and lower levels of negative attention in role play scenarios than participants in standard parenting class | This intervention was a PCIT-based parenting class |
| Self-Brown et al (2012)23 | 83 families | Not reported | Child welfare agency in the US | Pre–post | Posttreatment only | Using benchmarking methods, community delivered PCIT was found to produce superior outcomes to a control benchmark but inferior outcomes to a gold-standard PCIT efficacy trial benchmark | |
| Timmer et al (2006)30 | 75 foster families, 98 nonabusive biological parent–child dyads | 62% male | University-based outpatient clinic in the US | Group comparison | Posttreatment only | Significant reduction in ECBI scores from pre- to posttreatment for both foster parents and biological parents, with no difference between these groups | Higher levels of parenting stress in foster parents predicted treatment retention, whereas it predicted premature dropout for biological parents |
| Timmer et al (2010)18 | 62 families with intimate partner violence, 67 families without intimate partner violence | 67% male in sample A and 61% male in sample B | University-based outpatient clinic in the US | Group comparison | Posttreatment only | Significant reduction in ECBI scores from pre- to posttreatment for families with and without intimate partner violence, with no difference between these groups | |
| Ware et al (2008)24 | 5 families | 60% male | In-home delivery of PCIT in the US | Pre–post | Posttreatment only | Increases in positive parental responses and decreases in negative parental responses as measured by the DPICS, reduction in ECBI scores from pre- to posttreatment. |
Abbreviations: CBCL, Child Behavior Checklist; CDI, Child-Directed Interaction; DPICS, Dyadic Parent–Child Interaction Coding System; ECBI, Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory; n/a, not applicable; PCIT, Parent–Child Interaction Therapy; RCT, randomized controlled trial; TAU, treatment as usual.