Abstract
We previously reported a 2 × 2 randomized clinical trial (RCT) of atomoxetine (ATX) and parent training (PT) for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms and behavioral noncompliance in 128 children with autism spectrum disorder, ages 5–14 years. Children were randomized to one of four conditions: ATX alone, placebo alone, ATX + PT, or PT + placebo. Both ATX and PT improved some indices of ADHD and behavioral compliance. In this report, we describe parent stress over time and across conditions. All four treatments improved parent self-rated stress from baseline to Week 10. However, there were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups. Significantly more improvement in parent stress scores was observed for clinical responders than non-responders.
Keywords: Parent stress, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Atomoxetine, Parent Training, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
A significant proportion of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) present with behavior and emotional problems (Kanne & Mazurek 2011; Lecavalier, 2006). Disruptive behavior disorders are especially common. Approximately 25% of children with ASD meet diagnostic criteria for either oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) or conduct disorder (CD) (Kaat & Lecavalier, 2013). Rates of ADHD appear to be higher (Gadow et al. 2005; Leyfer et al. 2006; Simonoff et al. 2008).
Parents of children with ASD report high levels of stress (Karst & Van Hecke 2012; Hayes & Watson 2013). The stress seems exacerbated by the presence of comorbid externalizing behavior problems (Baker et al. 2005; Lecavalier et al. 2006). This is not unique to ASD. In their meta-analysis on parent stress in children with ADHD, Theule et al. (2012) found that severity of ADHD and symptoms of externalizing behaviors such as non-compliance and aggression were significant predictors of parent stress.
It is widely believed that interventions targeting core features of ASD or behavior problems will have the added advantage of reducing parent stress. Despite this belief, there are few data on this topic in children with ASD, and these data are difficult to interpret because of limitations in study design or small sample sizes. In one of the few larger controlled trials, Tonge et al. (2006) reported that parents of young children newly diagnosed with ASD (n = 105) improved on the General Health Questionnaire with 20 weeks of parent education and either counseling or behavior management training, relative to a nonintervention control group. Recently, Iadarola et al. (2017) reported improvements in parental competence and reductions in parent stress and strain in a RCT with 180 young children with ASD and disruptive behaviors. Benefits were seen in both the parent training (PT) condition and an active comparator, but were significantly greater in PT.
Several studies have reported on the impact of interventions to reduce parent stress in children with ADHD and other disruptive behaviors (Lundahl, Risser, & Lovejoy 2006). In the largest study of its kind (n = 579 randomized to one of four conditions and followed over 14 months), the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD (MTA) failed to find differences between groups on the Parenting Stress Index (PSI) (Wells et al. 2000). Similarly, Abikoff et al. (2007) examined PSI scores in a 4-week trial of methylphenidate in 114 preschoolers with ADHD. There was no significant difference in the PSI ratings of parents of children in the methylphenidate and placebo groups, with mean total scores decreasing in both groups from baseline to end of study. Van Den Hoofdakker et al. (2007) reported on parent stress in a 5-month effectiveness study of PT in 94 children with ADHD. Although the PT enhanced the effectiveness of routine treatment of children on some variables, it did not reduce ADHD symptoms or parent stress on the PSI. Reductions in parenting stress were comparable in both treatment groups, with only trivial-to-small effect sizes.
We recently reported a 10-week 2 × 2 RCT of individual and combined treatment with atomoxetine (ATX) vs. placebo and PT vs. no PT for ADHD symptoms and behavioral noncompliance in 128 children with ASD. This study represented an opportunity to examine the differential impact of PT, medicine, and their combination on parent stress. Aiming to add to the limited literature on PT and parent stress in ASD, our first research question addressed whether we would observe changes in parent stress in this large sample and, if so, whether the changes would differ among the four treatment groups. We hypothesized that scores would decline across all groups but that the decline would be smaller in the placebo group compared to the active treatment groups (ATX, PT, or both). Our second research question asked whether clinical responder status at the end of the study would be associated with change in parent stress. With the supposition that decreases in parent stress would accompany decreases in disruptive behavior, we hypothesized positive clinical responders would have bigger reductions than nonresponders in parent stress from baseline to study end point.
Method
Procedures
We previously described the background, methods, and Week 10 results of this clinical trial (BLINDED). Briefly, the study was a three-site, randomized, parallel-groups, placebo-controlled trial of 128 children with ASD and ADHD, age 5–14 years. Randomization was stratified by site in equal numbers to one of four conditions (32 in each condition): ATX + PT, ATX-alone, PT + Placebo, or Placebo-alone, and balanced by mental age (MA < 6 years vs. > 6 years). During the acute trial, ATX assignment was double-blind and PT assignment was single-blind: known by only the family, behavior therapist, and study coordinator, while other study personnel, including staff raters, remained blinded. Visits initially occurred weekly to assess medication response, monitor adverse events and adjust doses. Final dose adjustments were made at Week 6, with subsequent monitoring at Weeks 8 and 10. Families assigned to PT met weekly for up to nine one-to-one sessions with a clinician for 60 to 90 minutes. Variations of the PT manual, which three of the authors of this article helped develop, were used in two prior RCTs of children with ASD and behavioral problems. The PSI (described below) was completed at baseline and at the end of the 10 weeks. For patients who terminated early, the PSI was completed at the last visit.
At Week 10, participants were considered ADHD Responders (having a favorable ADHD outcome) if they received a Clinical Global Impressions – Improvement (CGI- I) rating of 1 or 2 (much or very much improved) for ADHD symptoms by a blinded evaluator and ≥ 30% decrease on the ADHD subscale of the parent-rated Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Scale Fourth Edition (SNAP-IV). Participants were classified as Noncompliance Responders (achieving a favorable noncompliance outcome) if they received a CGI-I Improvement rating of 1 or 2 for Noncompliance by the blinded evaluator and ≥ 30% decrease on the mean severity score on the Home Situations Questionnaire–PDD version (described below). All procedures were approved by each institution’s IRB.
Participants
Participants were 128 children, age 5.0 to 14.11 years, with a mental age > 24 months, based upon either the Stanford-Binet - 5th Edition (Roid 2003) or Mullen Scales of Early Learning (Mullen 1995). All participants had an ASD diagnosis based upon the Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised (Rutter, Le Couteur & Lord 2003) and expert clinical evaluation that included interview, observation, and DSM-IV-TR checklist (APA 2000). ASD included Autistic Disorder (n = 57, 44.5% of sample), Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (n = 50, 39.1% of sample), and Asperger’s Disorder (n= 21, 16.4% of sample). Participants had to exhibit problematic overactivity and/or inattention at both home and school, defined as mean item score ≥ 1.5 on both the parent- and teacher-completed SNAP-IV as well as CGI-Severity score ≥ 4. Participants were enrolled in the study regardless of severity of noncompliance scores. Consequently, not all participants displayed clinically significant noncompliance. Participants had to be free of all psychotropic medications for two weeks prior to randomization. We excluded children with significant psychiatric disorders other than ASD, ADHD, and DBD, medical conditions, or abnormalities on routine laboratory tests and ECG. Table 1 shows participant characteristics. There were no significant differences on demographic variables except for the percentage of children in regular education classrooms, where the placebo group had significantly fewer participants in special education. Importantly, there were no differences across conditions in ASD subtype (p = 0.85). There were also no differences across groups on parent-rated symptoms of ADHD and ODD symptoms (ps > 0.84) or on categorical diagnoses (116 of the 128 children met criteria for ADHD Combined subtype).
Table 1.
Participant demographics by randomized treatment group.
| Variable | ATX + PT N = 32 |
ATX N = 32 |
Placebo + PT N = 32 |
Placebo N = 32 |
P Value Comparing Groups |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 8.0 (1.9) | 8.6 (2.3) | 7.7 (1.5) | 8.2 (2.4) | 0.29 |
| IQ | 83.3 (21.6) | 78.7 (25.9) | 77.9 (25.7) | 86.7 (23.7) | 0.43 |
| % Autistic Disorder | 37.5% | 43.8% | 43.8% | 53.1% | 0.70 |
| % Asperger’s | 15.6% | 21.9% | 15.6% | 12.5% | 0.84 |
| % PDD-NOS | 46.9% | 34.4% | 40.6% | 34.3% | 0.73 |
| % Male | 96.9% | 81.3% | 84.4% | 78.1% | 0.13 |
| % Caucasian | 87.5% | 84.4% | 81.3% | 75.0% | 0.67 |
| % African Am | 3.1% | 6.3% | 6.3% | 15.6% | 0.39 |
| Family Income | 0.91 | ||||
| ≥$60K | 56.3% | 46.9% | 53.1% | 56.3% | |
| <$60K | 43.7% | 53.1% | 46.9% | 43.7% | |
| % Regular Ed | 43.7% | 28.1% | 46.9% | 65.6% | 0.028 |
| % Special Ed | 56.3% | 71.9% | 53.1% | 34.4% | |
| ADHD | 0.44 | ||||
| CGI-S Moderate | 9 (28%) | 9 (28%) | 7 (22%)* | 9 (28%) | |
| Marked | 19 (59%) | 15 (47%) | 18 (58%)* | 12 (38%) | |
| Severe/Extreme | 4 (13%) | 8 (25%) | 6 (19%) | 11 (34%) | |
| Non-Compliance | 0.90 | ||||
| CGI-S Mild | 2 (6%) | 1 (3%) | 1 (3%)* | 1 (3%) | |
| Moderate | 19 (59%) | 16 (50%) | 17 (53%)* | 15 (47%) | |
| Marked/Severe | 11 (35%) | 15 (47%) | 13 (41%)* | 16 (50%) |
1 patient with missing data
In approximately 90% of cases, the mother provided the ratings. The average age was 39.4 years (SD = 7.0) for mothers and 41.2 years (SD= 8.2) for fathers. There was no association between parental age and PSI change score.
Measures
Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin 1995)
The PSI was designed to identify potentially dysfunctional parent–child systems. It was derived from the full length PSI and contains 36 items distributed among three subscales with 12 items each: Parental Distress, Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction, and Difficult Child. Items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from Strongly agree to Strongly disagree. The PSI-SF has good test re-retest reliability and internal consistency. The correlation between the 101- item PSI and the PSI-SF is 0.94 (Abidin 1995).
Clinical Global Impressions (CGI; Guy 1976)
The CGI includes scales for severity and improvement. The CGI-Severity (CGI-S) is scored from “1” (normal) to “7” (extremely ill). The CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) score ranges from “1” (very much improved), through “4” (no change), to “7” (very much worse). The CGI was completed by a blinded evaluator based on parent/child interviews, observation, and review of parent and teacher ratings. Separate CGI ratings were obtained for ADHD and Noncompliance.
Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Scale (SNAP-IV; Bussing et al. 2008)
The SNAP-IV parent and teacher scales were used to measure ADHD and oppositional symptoms at home and school. The SNAP-IV, ADHD, and ODD sections include the 18 DSM-IV symptoms of ADHD (9 inattention and 9 hyperactive/impulsive items) and 8 symptoms of ODD rated on a 0–3 scale. A mean item score of 1.5 on the parent and teacher SNAP-IV 18-symptom combined ADHD items, or the 9-symptom hyperactive-impulsive items, or the 9-symptom inattentive items served as a study inclusion criterion.
Home Situations Questionnaire-PDD (HSQ-PDD; Chowdhury et al. 2010)
The HSQ-PDD was completed by parents to assess noncompliance. Originally developed to assess noncompliance in typically developing children with disruptive behavior, the HSQ was adapted to evaluate behavioral noncompliance in children with ASD. Items are rated on 10-point Likert scales, ranging from 0 to 9. The HSQ has good psychometric properties and is sensitive to treatment effects (Chowdhury et al., 2016; Handen et al. 2015).
Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC; Aman, Singh, Stewart, & Field 1985) is a 58-item parent-rated measure of behavior problems. Each item is rated on a Likert scale from 0 (not a problem) to 3 (severe in degree). The ABC contains five subscales: I) Irritability (15 items), II) Social Withdrawal (16 items), III) Stereotypic Behavior (7 items), IV) Hyperactivity/Noncompliance (16 items), and V) Inappropriate Speech (4 items). The ABC has good psychometric properties in children with ASD (Kaat, Lecavalier & Aman 2014).
Developmental/Cognitive functioning
The Stanford-Binet Fifth Edition (SB-V; Roid 2003) or the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL; Mullen 1995) were used to assess cognitive functioning. The Mullen was administered to children who did not achieve a basal score on the abbreviated SB-V.
Data Analysis
Changes in PSI score over time were analysed using the MIXED procedure in SAS, v9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). Model fit and normality assumptions were assessed by examination of residuals. Linear mixed models for repeated measures were used with site (3 levels), treatment group (4 levels), and time x treatment interaction as fixed factors, while subjects were a random factor. Missing data due to early termination of the trial were handled using last observation carried forward. One participant withdrew consent at baseline (no PSI survey collected) and an additional five participants exited the study either before the start of treatment or right after the first visit and did not complete the end-of-study PSI. In all, 99 participants had PSI collected at the end of 10-week treatment. The remaining 23 were collected at weeks 1 (n = 1), 2 (n = 3), 3 (n = 1), 4 (n = 4), 5 (n = 5), 6 (n = 3), and 8 (n = 6). Sensitivity analyses using the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption for missing data were implemented in the mixed procedure to ensure that conclusions were robust.
We reported the relationship between percent change on the PSI and other clinical measures with Spearman Rank correlations because data were not normally distributed. Percent change was calculated by subtracting the score at baseline from the score at study endpoint and dividing it by the baseline score. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by examining absolute change and percentage change to control for baseline scores. There were no differences in results. Here, we report scores based on percentage change.
Results
Table 2 shows PSI total and subscale scores from baseline to study endpoint for each of the four experimental groups. Overall, the total stress score declined significantly from 98.4 to 91.2 (p < 0.001). Changes in stress scores among the four groups were not significantly different (p = 0.624). Additionally, we looked at the effects of PT alone and in combination with drug vs. no PT (ATX + PT and PT + placebo treatment groups vs the ATX alone and placebo alone groups), as well as the effect of ATX alone and in combination with PT vs. placebo (ATX + PT and ATX alone vs PT + placebo and Placebo alone). There was no statistically significant effect for PT or ATX on parent PSI total score (p = 0.754 and 0.542 respectively). Similar patterns were observed for all three PSI subscales.
Table 2.
PSI scores from baseline to study endpoint by experimental groups.
| Baseline | End | Changes | Effect Size | P value for mixed model | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PSI total score | |||||
| ATX + PT | 100.3 ± 17.5, n=32 | 93.4 ± 19.6, n=30 | −7.4 ± 15.3 | .48 | 0.014 |
| ATX | 101.8 ± 19.6, n =32 | 92.8 ± 20.4, n=31 | −9.0 ± 16.0 | .56 | 0.004 |
| PT + Placebo | 96.7 ± 21.3, n =31 | 88.5 ± 24.3, n=31 | −8.2 ± 16.9 | .49 | 0.011 |
| Placebo | 94.7 ± 20.6, n =32 | 89.9 ± 21.7, n=30 | −4.8 ± 11.1 | .43 | 0.025 |
| Overall | 98.4 ± 19.8, n =127 | 91.2 ± 21.4 n=122 | −7.4 ± 14.9 | .50 | <.0001 |
| PD | |||||
| ATX + PT | 30.3 ± 9.5, n=32 | 27.6 ± 8.2, n=30 | −3.3 ± 7.0 | .47 | 0.023 |
| ATX | 31 ± 9.3, n=32 | 28.8 ± 9.7, n=31 | −2.2 ± 6.8 | .32 | 0.083 |
| PT + Placebo | 30.6 ± 10.3, n=31 | 28.2 ± 11.8, n=31 | −2.4 ± 8.7 | .28 | 0.135 |
| Placebo | 28.8 ± 9.1, n=32 | 26.7 ± 8.3, n=30 | −2.3 ± 6.7 | .34 | 0.077 |
| Overall | 30.2 ± 9.5, n=127 | 27.8 ± 9.5, n=122 | −2.5 ± 7.3 | .34 | 0.0003 |
| PCDI | |||||
| ATX + PT | 29.6 ± 5.7, n=32 | 28.8 ± 6.2, n=30 | −0.7 ± 5.2 | .13 | 0.444 |
| ATX | 29.5 ± 6.9, n=32 | 27.5 ± 5.3, n=31 | −1.7 ± 5.8 | .29 | 0.085 |
| PT + Placebo | 27.8 ± 7.2, n=31 | 25.7 ± 7.3, n=31 | −2.1 ± 4.9 | .43 | 0.025 |
| Placebo | 27.4 ± 6.6, n=32 | 26.3 ± 7.0, n=30 | −1.1 ± 3.8 | .29 | 0.110 |
| Overall | 28.6 ± 6.6, n=127 | 27.1 ± 6.5, n=122 | −1.4 ± 4.9 | .29 | 0.002 |
| DC | |||||
| ATX + PT | 40.4 ± 7.31, n=32 | 37.1 ± 9.5, n=30 | −3.4 ± 6.2 | .55 | 0.005 |
| ATX | 41.3 ± 7.56, n=32 | 36.5 ± 9.2, n=31 | −5.1 ± 7.9 | .65 | 0.001 |
| PT + Placebo | 38.3 ± 8.33, n=31 | 34.5 ± 8.8, n=31 | −3.7 ± 6.4 | .58 | 0.003 |
| Placebo | 38.5 ± 9.11, n=32 | 37 ± 9.9, n=30 | −1.4 ± 4.3 | .33 | 0.085 |
| Overall | 39.7 ± 8.11, n=127 | 36.3 ± 9.3, n=122 | −3.4 ± 6.4 | .53 | <.0001 |
PD = Parental Distress; PCDI = Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction; DC = Difficult Child.
Table 3 shows the difference in total and subscale PSI scores from baseline to study endpoint by clinical responder status (i.e., the combination of CGI-Improvement of 1 or 2 + 30% score reduction) for each of the four experimental groups. Both the ADHD and non-compliance response status at the end of the acute phase were associated with significant stress reductions. The 44 ADHD positive responders had a total stress score reduction of 13.6 ± 14.6 points, which was significantly more than the 78 non-responders who saw their total stress score increase slightly (−3.9 ± 14.0; p = 0.004). Once again, the differences among the four treatment groups were not statistically significant (p = 0.726). Similarly, the 38 non-compliance positive responders saw their total stress scores decline by 15.1 ± 13.0 points, which was significantly more than the 84 non-responders (3.9 ± 14.5; p = 0.001). The differences among the four groups were not statistically significant (p = 0.525) although ATX + PT always had the largest change for noncompliance responders. Finally, we examined the effects of PT alone and in combination with drug (ATX + PT and PT + placebo treatment groups vs the ATX alone and placebo groups), as well as the effect of ATX alone and in combination with PT (ATX + PT and ATX alone vs PT + placebo and Placebo alone). There was no PT effect (p = 0.631) or ATX effect on parent stress (p = 0.950).
Table 3.
Difference in total and subscale PSI scores from baseline to study endpoint by clinical responder status
| ADHD response status | Noncompliance response status | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-responder | Responder | P value | Non-responder | Responder | P value | |
| PSI Total | ||||||
| ATX + PT | −4.3 ± 12.9, n=16 | −11.1± 17.4, n=14 | 0.197 | −3.7 ± 14.0, n=23 | −21.1± 11.1, n=7 | 0.006 |
| ATX | −3.7 ± 13.6, n=16 | −14.7± 16.8, n=15 | 0.049 | −4.5 ± 13.5, n=17 | −14.4± 17.6, n=14 | 0.077 |
| PT + Placebo | −3.9 ± 17.6, n=22 | −18.7± 9.2, n=9 | 0.023 | −4.4 ± 19.4, n=19 | −14.3± 9.9, n=12 | 0.108 |
| Placebo | −3.7 ± 12.1, n=24 | −9.17± 4.12, n=6 | 0.509 | −3.7 ± 11.8, n=25 | −10.2± 3.6, n=5 | 0.431 |
| Overall | −3.9 ± 14.0, n=78 | −13.6± 14.6, n=44 | 0.004 | −3.9± 14.5, n=84 | −15.1± 13.0, n=38 | 0.001 |
| PD | ||||||
| ATX + PT | −1.9± 7.7, n=16 | −4.9± 6.0, n=14 | 0.247 | −1.8± 6.9, n=23 | −8.3± 4.7, n=7 | 0.035 |
| ATX | 0.9± 5.6, n=16 | −5.5± 6.6, n=15 | 0.018 | −0.9± 5.0, n=17 | −3.7± 8.5, n=14 | 0.347 |
| PT + Placebo | −0.5± 8.8, n=22 | −7.1± 6.6, n=9 | 0.032 | −0.3± 9.3, n=19 | −5.7± 6.6, n=12 | 0.082 |
| Placebo | −1.9± 7.3, n=24 | −3.7± 2.7, n=6 | 0.634 | −1.9± 7.2, n=25 | −4.0± 2.9, n=5 | 0.613 |
| Overall | −0.9± 7.5, n=78 | −5.4± 5.9, n=44 | 0.004 | −1.3± 7.2, n=84 | −5.2± 6.8, n=38 | 0.012 |
| PCDI | ||||||
| ATX + PT | −0.4± 4, n=16 | −1.0± 6.5, n=14 | 0.781 | 0.6± 5.1, n=23 | −4.9± 3.3, n=7 | 0.024 |
| ATX | −1.5± 6.1, n=16 | −1.9± 5.6, n=15 | 0.966 | −0.5± 5.8, n=17 | −3.2± 5.5, n=14 | 0.156 |
| PT + Placebo | −1.6± 5.4, n=22 | −3.3± 3.2, n=9 | 0.644 | −1.3± 5.8, n=19 | −3.3± 2.7, n=12 | 0.401 |
| Placebo | −1.0± 3.9, n=24 | −1.5± 3.5, n=6 | 0.834 | −0.9± 3.9, n=25 | −2.2± 3.4, n=5 | 0.795 |
| Overall | −1.2± 4.8, n=78 | −1.9± 5.2, n=44 | 0.802 | −0.5± 5.1, n=84 | −3.4± 4.1, n=38 | 0.023 |
| DC | ||||||
| ATX + PT | −1.9± 5.3, n=16 | −5.2± 6.9, n=14 | 0.138 | −2.0± 5.7, n=23 | −8.0± 6.0, n=7 | 0.028 |
| ATX | −3.1± 6.1, n=16 | −7.3± 9.1, n=15 | 0.059 | −3.1± 5.8, n=17 | −7.5± 9.5, n=14 | 0.058 |
| PT + Placebo | −1.9± 6.43, n=22 | −8.2± 3.8, n=9 | 0.011 | −2.7± 7.7, n=19 | −5.3± 3.4, n=12 | 0.293 |
| Placebo | −0.8± 4.5, n=24 | −4.0± 1.7, n=6 | 0.238 | −0.9± 4.5, n=25 | −4.0± 1.9, n=5 | 0.302 |
| Overall | −1.8± 5.5, n=78 | −6.4± 6.9, n=44 | 0.001 | −2.1± 5.9, n=84 | −6.5± 6.6, n=38 | 0.003 |
PD = Parental Distress; PCDI = Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction; DC = Difficult Child.
Next, we posed the question whether changes in ADHD symptoms, behavioral noncompliance, irritability, or social withdrawal accounted for some or most of the changes observed in parent stress. Table 4 shows Spearman Rank correlations between percent change on PSI total score and percent change on other behavior problem measures (n = 122). All the associations were statistically significant and of similar magnitude, with the ABC Irritability being the most correlated (r =.42) and ABC-Lethargy the least correlated (r =.30).
Table 4.
Correlations between percent reduction of PSI total score and improvement on behavior problem measures
| Measures | Correlation | P value |
|---|---|---|
| HSQ-PDD | .40 | <.0001 |
| ABC-Irritability | .42 | <.0001 |
| ABC-Hyperactivity | .33 | .0002 |
| ABC- Lethargy | .23 | .0112 |
| SNAP- Inattention | .35 | <.0001 |
| SNAP- Hyperactivity | .33 | .0002 |
| SNAP ADHD | .34 | .0001 |
| SNAP ODD | .30 | .0009 |
Finally, we conducted a series of exploratory multiple regressions with stepwise variable selection in an attempt to quantify how much of the change in total parent stress could be accounted for by reported changes in child outcomes. The mother’s education level, treatment group, and percent changes of the child outcomes (HSQ-PDD, ABC subscales, SNAP subscales), were included as dependent variables in the models. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted using the square root transformation of the PSI percent change as dependent variable. Depending on the combination of variables, R2 was between 0.20 and 0.25. For example, when only the HSQ-PDD was entered in the model, 20% of the variance was accounted for. Adding the remaining variables did not significantly increase R2.
Discussion
Many professionals believe that interventions effective in ameliorating behavior problems may have the added advantage of reducing parent stress. This study provided a good opportunity to examine this question in a large sample of children with ASD and comorbid ADHD receiving PT, ATX, and their combination. Our data showed that PSI scores declined in all four experimental groups. The average total PSI score reduction across conditions was 7.4 points. This corresponds to about one third SD and a drop of 7% when comparing to the baseline values. This suggests a modest added benefit of the study interventions to parent well-being. Interestingly, there was no statistically significant differentiation among groups, although changes in the placebo group were smaller than the three other groups (PSI total score of −4.8 for placebo vs −7.4, for ATX + PT, −9.0 for ATX alone, and −8.2 for PT + placebo). Declines in PSI score in all experimental conditions have been reported in a number of trials in children with ADHD without ASD (Wells et al., 2000; Abikoff et al., 2007), as well as in the Iadarola et al. (2017) study of children with ASD. This rather small differentiation between treatment groups and placebo may indicate that treatment effects on parent stress are modest, requiring much larger samples to demonstrate differential effect. It is also a testament to the placebo response, suggesting that meeting regularly with research staff may contribute to lower overall parent stress, independent of treatment or placebo group assignment. If so, it raises the possibility of using regular meetings with paraprofessional volunteers as a support for parents. The lack of specialized effect for PT might also be because symptoms of ADHD might be more challenging to decrease with our current intervention compared to other trials focusing more on disruptive behaviors such as tantrums or aggression. In fact, moderator analyses of a PT trial in preschoolers with ASD and disruptive behaviors revealed that children with significant ADHD symptoms improved much less than their counterparts with fewer ADHD symptoms (Lecavalier et al., 2017).
The duration of the study is of importance when interpreting these results. It is possible that 10 weeks is too brief to allow significant changes to manifest themselves. This might be especially true in the case of PT where more time is needed to learn intervention techniques and make them habitual. In the Iadarola (2017) preschool PT study, the average total PSI score reduction was 8 points after 12 weeks of treatment, and 12 points after 24 weeks of treatment. In addition to the short duration of the trial, attrition likely influenced our findings. Fourteen families dropped out before week 6. One would not expect large effects on parent well-being if little treatment (PT or medicine) was received.
Our hypothesis that positive clinical responders would have important reductions in parent stress was supported. In fact, it is the clinical status at study endpoint that was associated with the largest changes in PSI scores (14 total PSI points for the ADHD responders and 15 total PSI points for the Noncompliance responders). In other words, parents who reported child improvement also reported improvement in their own stress. We can only speculate on causal mechanisms without proper mediation analyses. It could be that reduction in stress increases parent availability to help their child or that improvement in the child’s behavior alleviates parent stress. As with previous analyses, the differences across conditions were not significant, although parent stress scores of ATX + PT noncompliance responders declined twice as much as their counterparts in the Placebo group. The absence of statistical significance is likely due to the large variances and small sample sizes (n= 7 responders in the ATX + PT group and n = 5 responders in the Placebo group).
In an attempt to explore factors associated with stress reduction, we examined reduction in ADHD, behavioral compliance, irritability, and social withdrawal in relation to parent stress reductions. Our measures of child behavior change explained about 20 to 25% of the changes in parent stress scores. Although this is instructive, it leaves most of the change unexplained.
The two main limitations of our study included our narrow definition of stress and the sample size. The PSI only measures one aspect of parent stress. Nevertheless, it is the most frequently used measure of parent stress, thereby facilitating comparisons across studies. This was one of the largest intervention studies in the ASD field thus far and one of only two to examine a combination of treatments. Nevertheless, only 32 children were randomized to each experimental condition, and lack of statistical power may have undermined detection of treatment effects on parent stress.
In sum, the experience of being in a research study was associated with a reduction in parent stress. Reduction in parent stress was significantly associated with child improvement, but the type of treatment was not critical to the amount of stress reduction. Larger samples are needed for a better understanding of moderating and mediating variables.
Footnotes
ClinicalTrials.gov Title: Atomoxetine, Placebo and Parent Management Training in Autism (Strattera)
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00844753
Authors of this paper and their affiliations include, Dr. Luc Lecavalier at The Ohio State Nisonger Center; Dr. Xueliang Pan with the Department of Biomedical Informatics at The Ohio State University; Dr. Tristram Smith with the University of Rochester Medical Center; Dr. Benjamin L. Handen with the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic at University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; Dr. L. Eugene Arnold with The Ohio State Nisonger Center; Dr. Laura Silverman with the University of Rochester Medical Center; Dr. Rameshwari V. Tumuluru with the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic at University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; Dr. Jill Hollway with The Ohio State Nisonger Center and Dr. Michael G. with The Ohio State Nisonger Center. All affiliations mentioned above are within The United States.
Compliance with ethical standards: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committees and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants who were included in this article.
Disclosures of interest: Dr. Aman has received research contracts, consulted with, served on advisory boards, or done investigator training for AMO Pharma, CogState, Inc.; Confluence Pharmaceutica; CogState Clinical Trials, Ltd.; Coronado Biosciences; Forest Research; Hoffman-La Roche; Johnson & Johnson, Lumos Pharma, MedAvante, Inc.; Novartis; Ovid Therapeutics, ProPhase LLC; and Supernus Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Handen has received research support from Lilly, Roche, Curemark, Autism Speaks, NIMH, and NIA. Dr. Arnold has received research funding from Curemark, Forest, Lilly, Neuropharm, Novartis, Noven, Shire, Supernus, Roche, YoungLiving, NIH and Autism Speaks. He has consulted with Gowlings, Neuropharm, Organon, Pfizer, Sigma Tau, Shire, Tris Pharma, and Waypoint. He has been on advisory boards for Arbor, Ironshore, Novartis, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Seaside Therapeutics, Sigma Tau, Shire, and received travel support from Noven. Dr. Hollway has received research funding from Forest Research Institute, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Young Living, F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, and Autism Speaks. Drs. Lecavalier, Pan, Smith, Tumuluru, and Silverman, have no conflicts of interest to report.
Contributor Information
Luc Lecavalier, Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry, Nisonger Center and Department of Psychology, Ohio State University; 371D McCampbell Hall, 1581 Dodd Dr. Columbus, Oh 43210.
Xueliang Pan, Research Scientist, Center for Biostatistics, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Ohio State University 310H Lincoln Tower, 1800 Cannon Drive Columbus, OH 43210.
Tristram Smith, University of Rochester Medical Center; Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC), 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 671 Rochester, NY 14642.
Benjamin L. Handen, Professor of Psychiatry, Pediatrics, Psychology and Instruction and Learning; Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; 3811 O’Hara St. Pittsburgh PA 15213.
L. Eugene Arnold, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry; Nisonger Center and Department of Psychology, Ohio State University; 1581 Dodd Dr. Columbus, Oh 43210.
Laura Silverman, Assistant Professor, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 671 Rochester, NY 14642.
Rameshwari V. Tumuluru, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine 3811 O’Hara St. Pittsburgh PA 15213.
Jill Hollway, Assistant Professor of Research in Psychiatry, Research Scientist; Nisonger Center and Department of Psychology, Ohio State University; 285B McCampbell Hall, 1581 Dodd Drive Columbus, Ohio, 43210.
Michael G. Aman, Professor Emeritus of Psychology; Nisonger Center and Department of Psychology, Ohio State University; 1581 Dodd Dr. Columbus, Oh 43210.
References
- Abidin RR. Parenting Stress Index. 3. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resource; 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Abikoff HB, Vitiello B, Riddle MA, Cunningham C, Greenhill LL, … Wigal T. Methylphenidate Effects on Functional Outcomes in the Preschoolers with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Treatment Study (PATS) Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology. 2007;17:581–592. doi: 10.1089/cap.2007.0068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Aman MG, Smith T, Arnold LE, et al. A review of atomoxetine effects in young people with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2014;35:1412–1424. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2014.03.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Aman MG, Singh NN, Stewart AW, Field CJ. Psychometric characteristics of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1985;89:492–502. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Aman MG, Singh NN, Stewart AW, Field CJ. The Aberrant Behavior Checklist: A behavior rating scale for the assessment of treatment effects. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1985;89:485–491. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Text Revised. 4. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Bearss K, Johnson C, Smith T, Lecavalier L, Swiezy N, … Scahill L. Effect of parent training vs parent education on behavioral problems in children with autism spectrum disorder: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313(15):1524–1533. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.3150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bussing R, Fernandez M, Harwood M, et al. Parent and teacher SNAP-IV ratings of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms—psychometric properties and normative ratings from a school district sample. Assessment. 2008;15:317–328. doi: 10.1177/1073191107313888. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chowdhury M, Aman MG, Scahill L, Sweizi N, Arnold LE, … McDougle C. The Home Situations Questionnaire-PDD Version: Factor structure and psychometric properties. Journal of Intellectual and Disability Research. 2010;54:281–291. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01259.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chowdhury M, Aman MG, Lecavalier L, Smith T, Johnson C, … Scahill L. Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Home Situations Questionnaire for autism spectrum disorder: The Home Situations Questionnaire – Autism Spectrum Disorder. Autism. 2016:20. doi: 10.1177/1362361315593941. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gadow KD, DeVincent CJ, Pomeroy J, Azizian A. Comparison of DSM-IV symptoms in elementary school-aged children with PDD versus clinic and community samples. Autism. 2005;9:392–415. doi: 10.1177/1362361305056079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Guy W. ECDEU assessment manual of psychopharmacology. Rockville, Md: National Institute of Mental Health, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare publication (ADM), Psychopharmacology Research Branch; 1976. pp. 218–222. [Google Scholar]
- Handen BL, Aman MG, Arnold LE, Hyman SL, Tumuluru RV, … Smith T. Effects of Atomoxetine, parent training, and their combination in children with autism spectrum disorder and ADHD symptoms. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2015;54:905–915. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2015.08.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hayes SA, Watson SL. The Impact of Parenting Stress: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Comparing the Experience of Parenting Stress in Parents of Children with and without Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2013;43:629–642. doi: 10.1007/s10803-012-1604-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Iadarola S, Levato L, Harrison B, Smith T, Lecavalier L. Teaching parents behavioral strategies for ASD: Effects on stress, strain, and competence. doi: 10.1007/s10803-017-3339-2. (submitted) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kaat AJ, Lecavalier L. Disruptive behavior disorders in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders: A review of the prevalence, presentation, and treatment. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2013;7:1579–1594. [Google Scholar]
- Karst JS, Van Hecke AV. Parent and family impact of autism spectrum disorders: A review and proposed model for intervention evaluation. Clinical child and family psychology review. 2012;15:247–277. doi: 10.1007/s10567-012-0119-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lecavalier L. Behavior and emotional problems in young people with pervasive developmental disorders: Relative prevalence, effects of subject characteristics, and empirical classification. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2006;36:1101–1114. doi: 10.1007/s10803-006-0147-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lecavalier L, Leone S, Wiltz J. The impact of behavior problems on caregiver stress in young people with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of intellectual Disability Research. 2006;50:172–183. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00732.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lecavalier L, Smith T, Johnson C, Bearss K, Swiezy N, et al. Moderators of parent training for disruptive behaviors in young children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2017;45:1235–1245. doi: 10.1007/s10802-016-0233-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lundahl B, Risser HJ, Lovejoy MC. A meta-analysis of parent training: Moderators and follow-up effects. Clinical psychology review. 2006;26(1):86–104. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2005.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mullen EJ. Mullen Scales of Early Learning. Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments; 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Roid GH. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. 5. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Rutter M, Le Couteur A, Lord C. Autism Diagnostic Interview Revised. Torrance, CA: Western Psychological Services; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Silverman L, Hollway JA, Smith T, et al. A multisite trial of atomoxetine and parent training in children with autism spectrum disorders: rationale and design challenges. Resarch in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2014;8:899–907. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2014.03.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Simonoff E, Pickles A, Charman T, Chandler S, Loucas T, Baird G. Psychiatric disorders in children with autism spectrum disorders: Prevalence, comorbidity, and associated factors in a population-derived sample. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2008;47:921–929. doi: 10.1097/CHI.0b013e318179964f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Theule J, Wiener J, Tannock R, Jenkins JM. Parenting Stress in Families of Children With ADHD: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2012;21:3–17. [Google Scholar]
- Tonge B, Brereton A, Kiomall M, Mackinnin A, King N, Rineheart N. Effects on Parental Mental Health of an Education and Skills Training Program for Parents of Young Children With Autism: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2006;45:561–569. doi: 10.1097/01.chi.0000205701.48324.26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Van Den Hoofdakker BJ, Van der Veen-Mulder L, Sytema S, Emmelkamp PMG, Minderaa RB, Nauta MH. Effectiveness of Behavioral Parent Training for Children With ADHD in Routine Clinical Practice: A Randomized Controlled Study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2007;46:1263–1271. doi: 10.1097/chi.0b013e3181354bc2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wells KC, Epstein JN, Hinshaw SP, Conners CK, Klaric J, … Wigal T. Parenting and Family Stress Treatment Outcomes in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): An Empirical Analysis in the MTA Study1. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2000;28:543–553. doi: 10.1023/a:1005131131159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]