1 Running Head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE: BPT AND CBMF

Article Critique of the Behavioural Parent Training Intervention

and the Computer Based Math Fluency Intervention
EDPS 612.03
Jacqueline Munroe
University of Calgary









2 Running Head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE: BPT AND CBMF

Effects of an 8-Session Behavioral Parent Training Group for Parents of Children with ADHD
on Child Impairment and Parenting Confidence
Methods Analysis
Loren and colleagues (2013) conducted a study examining the efficacy of a Behavioural
Parent Training (BPT) program on a) ADHD impairments and b) perceived parent ability to
manage their childs behaviour. The study was conducted over three years, with 37 family
groups receiving eight BPT sessions. In terms of intervention strengths, the three year time
period of data collection increased the odds of understanding intervention effects. When
collected over a long period of time, results are less likely to be attributed to external factors such
as time of year, or missed sessions around holiday months (Royse, Thyer, & Padgett, 2009). In
addition, the sample size (237 families) appeared to be appropriate to the constructs under study;
as sample size increases, random sampling error tends to decrease. However, according to
Marshall (1996); little supplementary information is to be gained if the sample size becomes too
large.
Conversely, a limitation of this section involved a lack of comprehensive participant
characteristics. While participants were described by age range, gender, and particular ADHD
diagnosis, there was key information missing such as ethnicity, family composition, and
presence or absence of medication. All or any of those missing variables could have potentially
influenced results. A second limitation was the use of convenience sampling. Participants were
not recruited; rather, parents sought out BPT to assist in dealing with their childrens challenging
ADHD related behaviours. While convenience sampling is less costly and more time effective
for the researcher, it can result in inferior quality data (Marshall, 1996). Non-random sampling
3 Running Head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE: BPT AND CBMF

could have led to the participation of fundamentally different families (on socioeconomic status,
educational level, family cohesiveness etc.) from those of ADHD children in the general
population, meaning results would be less generalizable. Lastly, in terms of participant inclusion
criteria, one main limitation was that ADHD diagnoses were based solely on clinical interviews.
In order to enhance reliability of a diagnosis, assessments should be multimodal. It is possible
that cognitive, behavioural, or emotional problems can present like ADHD and in using only one
assessment method, it is difficult to know definitively what a child may be dealing with. The
efficacy and relevance of particular intervention strategies depend on the accuracy of diagnoses.
Treatment involved a manualized BPT program developed by Barkley (1997) one of the
leading experts in ADHD; however, the program was not comprehensively described. Similarly,
data regarding treatment fidelity was not collected; therefore, we cannot be sure if treatment was
implemented as designed, or if results were actually due to the ascribed intervention. In terms of
instrumentation, pre and post intervention data was collected through the parent version of a
seven item Likert type Impairment Rating Scale (IRS). Psychometric properties of this
instrument have been documented in various samples (clinical and community) and show
excellent temporal stability and evidence of convergent and discriminant validity and the IRS
to be highly effective in discriminating between children with and without ADHD (Fabiano et
al., 2006; as cited in Loren et al., 2013, p. 4). The second tool utilized (an 11 item Likert type
scale), assessed parents perceived confidence in ability to manage their childs behaviour.
Unfortunately, no information was provided or established from an outside source regarding
psychometric properties. This instrument is a major weakness of the study, as results are based
on a tool that has not been found to be either valid (content relevance/external validity) or
4 Running Head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE: BPT AND CBMF

reliable. As such, all results (parent perception of management abilities) cannot be reported with
confidence (Royse et al., 2009).
Analysis and Results
In terms of data being sufficient for analysis, Likert type rating scales used to assess
DVs can be considered interval levels of measurement. Well-designed scales should represent
equal distance between each value. However, as mentioned, due to unknown psychometric
properties, data collected from assessing perceived parental confidence may or may not have
been sufficient to test the hypothesis. Regardless, normal statistical theory was assumed and data
(at least for the IRS) was presumed to be sufficient. Repeated measures analysis of variance was
employed using an SPSS mixed model procedure. Main effects for time for each IRS item, as
well as IRS total composite score and parent rated confidence, were analyzed. This was an
appropriate statistical procedure as it tested mean differences in within subjects experimental
designs (Hertzog & Rovine, 1985). Effect sizes were calculated to analyze degree of change over
time, and small to moderate effect sizes across all items were indicated. Pre-treatment, three of
the seven domains typically impacted by ADHD were assessed as significantly impaired. Post
treatment, all seven were found to be in the non-impaired range on the IRS. In terms of parental
reports of ability to handle child ADHD behaviour, significant increases were found post
treatment. A major strength of results is that findings are both statistically and clinically
significant. Post treatment, parents felt their childs ADHD behaviours, and their own ability to
handle these behaviours improved (Royse et al., 2009). Lastly, information was well organized
and readers were not inundated with statistical jargon. Data was sufficiently presented and
included both significant and non-significant results in word and table format to assist in
statistical comprehension.
5 Running Head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE: BPT AND CBMF

Suggestions for Improvement
Loren and colleagues (2013) could have improved upon their study by documenting more
comprehensively participant characteristics (ethnicity, family composition, and absence or
presence of medication). Future research should consider, document, and analyze data based on
these potentially influential variables. Secondly, inclusion criteria should involve a multimodal
method of assessment in diagnosing ADHD. This would enhance reliability of the diagnosis and
ensure the intervention is correctly addressing ADHD specific behaviours as opposed to another
underlying problem. Furthermore, the intervention process itself, and exactly how it was carried
out, should have been much more clearly described in order to replicate similar research in future
studies. Lastly, constructs under assessment (perceived parent ability to manage ADHD
behaviour) should have been assessed using instruments with strong psychometric properties to
provide valid and reliable results.
Effect of a Computer-Delivered Math Fact Intervention as a Supplemental Intervention for Math
in Third and Fourth Grades
Literature Review Analysis
Burns and colleagues (2010) conducted a study to examine the effects of a computer
based math fluency (CBMF) intervention on students at-risk of math difficulties. An early
strength of the literature review was the clearly established importance of the topic; math
proficiency or deficiency was directly linked to high school graduation rates. Literature was
comprehensive and included a background to math instruction and the five components
necessary for instructional success. Procedural fluency, the basis for this intervention (CBMF)
was included among the five. Furthermore, the literature went on to describe exactly why fluid
6 Running Head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE: BPT AND CBMF

computation should be intervened upon as opposed to the other four components which could
also have been intervention targets. Past research supporting the emphasis and importance of
fluidity and CBMP was described, with the current study aiming to expand upon previous
findings with a specific population of students experiencing math difficulty. Overall the literature
review was strong and relevant to the topic. It flowed naturally from providing significance and
focus of the research, background of common math challenges, current research on CBMF
interventions, applying past research to targeted populations, and finally, concluding with a
clearly stated hypothesis. Throughout the review, a clear rationale as to why further information
would be beneficial in this area was constructed (Mertens, 2014).
Discussion Analysis
The article discussion was similarly well written and comprehensive. It flowed logically
from results previously reviewed; supporting the hypothesis that CBMF was effective in
increasing math skills in students with math difficulties. In addition, the authors cautioned
readers of the limitations of their study, acknowledging that findings were not indicative of how
the same students would perform in more advanced math tasks. Similarly the authors
acknowledged that CBMF interventions could not be applied to all struggling math learners as
fluidity may not necessarily be the issue for all (and a more conceptual approach may be
required). A further strength involved the addition of information regarding the tiered approach
(currently popular in educational interventions), and statistics around percentages of Tier 2
students (50%) who would go on to require Tier 3 interventions. This additional information
provided evidence of the authors claims that the CBMF intervention is in no way a cure all for
every struggling student. Similarly, Tier 3 suggestions for research extensions (more
conceptually based instruction) were logical and well rationalized. Overall, the discussion
7 Running Head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE: BPT AND CBMF

section presented results in a cautious, realistic, and objective way and no attempts were made to
misrepresent findings.
Suggestions for Improvement
Burns and colleagues (2010) could have improved upon their study by analyzing the
success of the CBMF intervention based on pre and post-test assessment results. Because
students involved in the intervention were struggling math learners, their success should have
been analyzed based on individual progress not only though a comparison to the control group.
Similarly, students previous diagnoses should have been documented to account for pre-existing
challenges that could potentially impact results of the CBMF intervention. Lastly, a more holistic
intervention approach involving information at the Tier 1, 2, and 3 levels would have provided
much more evidence regarding interventions targeting math difficulties than what a strictly Tier
2 intervention could provide. However, overall, this article was well written and
comprehensively included strengths, limitations, threats to validity, and possible extensions for
future research.







8 Running Head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE: BPT AND CBMF


Works Cited
Burns, M. K., Kanive, R., & DeGrande, M. (2010). Effect of a computer-delivered math fact
intervention as a supplemental intervention for math in third and fourth
grades. Remedial and Special Education.
Epstein, J. N. (2013). Effects of an 8-Session Behavioral Parent Training Group for Parents
of Children With ADHD on Child Impairment and Parenting Confidence. Journal of
attention disorders, 1087054713484175.
Hertzog, C., & Rovine, M. (1985). Repeated-measures analysis of variance in developmental
research: Selected issues. Child development, 787-809.
Loren, R. E., Vaughn, A. J., Langberg, J. M., Cyran, J. E., Proano-Raps, T., Smolyansky, B. H., ... &
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13(6), 522-526.
Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology. Sage.
Royse, D., Thyer, B., & Padgett, D. (2009). Program evaluation: An introduction. Cengage
Learning