A 2025 study by Sigurðardóttir and colleagues brings together findings from 14 European randomized controlled trials with 3,252 families, all evaluating social learning-based parenting programmes. The study examined in detail how these programmes can support the reduction of disruptive behaviours in children. It found that changes like reducing harsh verbal discipline and being more consistent with consequences were particularly important in driving positive outcomes. Interestingly, using praise alone didn’t seem to explain improvements. The research also uncovered that not all families respond in the same way, highlighting the need to tailor support to different needs and contexts.
What Do Parenting Programs Actually Change?
Disruptive behaviours such as aggression, defiance, or rule-breaking are among the most common reasons why children are referred for mental health support (Kimonis et al., 2014). Parenting programmes, particularly those informed by social learning theory, are widely regarded as a key approach to addressing these concerns. These programmes aim to shift negative interaction cycles and help parents respond more effectively to challenging behaviour (Patterson, 1982; Kaehler et al., 2016).
Still, despite their solid evidence base, there’s been an ongoing puzzle: what exactly changes in parenting to make these programs work? Many studies have used broad or composite measures of parenting, which makes it hard to know what’s really driving improvements (Forehand et al., 2014). And because most trials don’t have large enough sample sizes, they’re often not equipped to examine how parenting behaviours link to child outcomes in detail (Maric et al., 2012).
That’s why Sigurðardóttir and colleagues (2025) conducted a meta-analysis using individual data from multiple trials. The researchers aimed to identify which specific parenting behaviours are most effective, and to explore whether different families benefit through distinct mechanisms of change.
“Without an understanding of how the change in children’s disruptive behavior comes about, important opportunities to improve parenting programs are hampered.”
What Kind of Parenting Changes Make the Biggest Difference?
The study focused on five parenting behaviours commonly targeted in interventions: increasing the use of praise and tangible rewards, and reducing physical discipline, harsh verbal discipline, and not following through on discipline.
When all five were analysed together, four stood out as meaningful drivers of change. Parents who became less harsh verbally, used less physical punishment, followed through more consistently on discipline, and used more tangible rewards were more likely to see improvements in their child’s behaviour. Praise, on the other hand, didn’t show a unique contribution once the other behaviours were accounted for (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2025).
Among these behaviours, two stood out in particular: reductions in harsh verbal discipline and increased following through on discipline were the strongest mediators. These findings are consistent with the principles of social learning theory: when parents avoid shouting or making empty threats, and instead respond in calm and predictable ways, children are more likely to adjust their behaviour accordingly. (Patterson, 1982).
“Reduced harsh verbal discipline and increased following through on discipline were the strongest mediators.”
Not Every Family Responds the Same Way
While the average effects were encouraging, the researchers also found that families don’t all follow the same path. By analysing patterns in the data, they identified three distinct subgroups (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2025).
The largest group, making up about 70% of families, showed clear benefits. These were families that tended to have children with moderate to high levels of disruptive behaviour at the start. For them, becoming more consistent in discipline seemed especially important.
Another group, about 28%, included families who were characterised by having children with relatively low levels of disruptive behaviour to begin with. These families showed little change, which makes sense: if the problem was less severe, there may have been less to work on.
A smaller group, around 3%, stood out because they didn’t seem to benefit at all. These were families facing more complex circumstances, such as children with ADHD or emotional difficulties, and parents who were dealing with their own mental health struggles. For this group, the parenting program didn’t seem to shift parenting behaviours or improve child outcomes.
“Whereas earlier studies have consistently suggested that families with more severe baseline disruptive child behavior benefit more… our subgroup findings revealed a nonlinear relation.”
What This Means for Clinicians
For those working directly with families, these findings offer some practical takeaways. First, reductions in harsh verbal discipline and greater consistency in following through on discipline emerged as especially meaningful changes, and may serve as helpful indicators of progress.
The study also reinforces the importance of tailoring support and thinking about context. Social learning–based programmes appear to benefit most those families showing risks in the areas the programmes target (parenting and child behaviour problems), while families experiencing a cumulation of risk factors may require more specialised services. Likewise, families with relatively few concerns at baseline may not need a full parenting program. Therefore, a more tailored or stepped-care approach could ensure that each family gets the level of support that fits their situation (van Aar et al., 2019; Piehler et al., 2022).
“Practitioners can perhaps monitor changes in parental harsh verbal discipline and following through on discipline as indicators of meaningful program effects.”
What Should Future Research and Services Focus On?
This study highlights the value of combining data across trials to explore questions that individual studies may not be able to address on their own (Debray et al., 2015). It also opens up some interesting directions for future work.
One area worth exploring is the role of parenting processes like warmth and responsiveness, which are often part of interventions but weren’t consistently measured in the trials included here. Second, gathering more data points during treatment, not just before and after, could also help clarify when and how change happens.
The findings also raise the possibility of offering more flexible or adaptive intervention models. If we know that families vary in how they respond, it makes sense to offer programs that can adjust based on a family’s profile and progress.
On the service side, these findings could support the use of screening tools that help identify which families are likely to benefit from standard programs and which may need something more intensive or tailored.
“Findings call for the use of innovative research methodologies to further examine individual differences in parenting program benefits and mechanisms.”
Final Thoughts
This study offers helpful insights into how parenting programs can support positive changes in child behaviour. In particular, it points to the role of specific parenting strategies, such as reducing harsh verbal discipline and being more consistent, as key elements that may contribute to these improvements.
At the same time, the findings remind us that families are different. Not everyone experiences the same benefits, and some may need different types or levels of support. A more flexible or personalised approach could help ensure that families with more complex needs, or those already doing quite well, receive the kind of input that feels relevant and useful.
By continuing to explore both the general patterns and the individual differences in how families respond, we can move towards more thoughtful and responsive ways of delivering support. Parenting programs are a valuable tool, and this research helps us understand how to make them even more effective and accessible for a wider range of families.
“A deeper understanding of how parenting programs work for individual families is essential to better tailor and target programs.”
Where next?
This conference, led by Professor Stephen Scott (ACAMH President) for a practical and insightful webinar on the treatment of conduct disorders in children and adolescents.Explore treatment approaches to managing conduct problems in children, with a focus on complex presentations such as comorbid ADHD, callous-unemotional traits, treatment resistance, and irritability. The session will also examine whether certain factors can predict which families may not respond to parent training, providing insights to inform clinical decision-making.
In this engaging talk, Professor Stephen Scott will share illustrative video clips of parent-child interactions, bringing real-life examples into the learning experience. You’ll also see a demonstration of an exciting new online parenting programme, and discover the latest findings on how parent training can lead to measurable brain changes in children. Ideal for professionals looking to refine their approach and stay up to date with the latest clinical insights.
Use the interactive programme below to gain an overview of the topic, meet the speaker, test your knowledge, and a whole lot more!
NB This blog has been peer reviewed
References
Sigurðardóttir, L. B. L., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Backhaus, S., Gardner, F., Scott, S., European Parenting Program Research Consortium, & Leijten, P. (2025). Individual participant data meta-analysis: Individual differences in mediators of parenting program effects on disruptive behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2023.11.005
Debray, T. P. A., Moons, K. G. M., van Valkenhoef, G., et al. (2015). Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis: a review of the methodology. Research Synthesis Methods, 6(4), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1160
Forehand, R., Lafko, N., Parent, J., & Burt, K. B. (2014). Is parenting the mediator of change in behavioral parent training for externalizing problems of youth? Clinical Psychology Review, 34(8), 608–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.10.001
Kaehler, L. A., Jacobs, M., & Jones, D. J. (2016). Distilling common history and practice elements to inform dissemination: Hanf-model BPT programs as an example. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 19(3), 236–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-016-0210-5
Kimonis, E. R., Frick, P. J., & McMahon, R. J. (2014). Conduct and oppositional defiant disorders. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Child Psychopathology (pp. 145–179). Guilford Press.
Maric, M., Wiers, R. W., & Prins, P. J. M. (2012). Ten ways to improve the use of statistical mediation analysis in the practice of child and adolescent treatment research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 15(3), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-012-0114-y
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family processes. Castalia Publishing Company.
Piehler, T. F., Zhang, J., Bloomquist, M. L., & August, G. J. (2022). Parent and child risk profiles as predictors of response to a conduct problem preventive intervention. Prevention Science, 23(7), 1308–1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-022-01374-4
van Aar, J., Leijten, P., Orobio de Castro, B., et al. (2019). Families who benefit and families who do not: Integrating person- and variable-centered analyses of parenting intervention responses. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 58(10), 993–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.02.004
