Introduction

The family structure in the United States is rapidly changing. In the past 40 years, the number of children living with both biological parents married has steadily declined, while the proportion of children residing in single family homes has increased. The extensive body of work documenting single-parent families, namely single-mother households, has largely focused on the problems experienced by these families. Contextually, the authors of this article define single-parent families as single parents who are divorced, separated, unmarried, widowed, single adoptive, and single-foster parents.

Studies have shown that single mothers are more likely than their married counterparts to experience higher levels of stress due to low-income, low levels of social and psychological support, (Barkley, 2013; McLanahan, 1983, 1985; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Waldfogel, Craigie & Brooks-Gunn, 2010), are at greater risk of experiencing poverty (McLanahan & Garfinkel, 1989), are more socially isolated (Smith, 1980), have trouble coping with role demands, and experience little sense of control in the parenting role (Hilton & Desrochers, 2000). In a similar study, children in single parent families were more likely to perform poorly on tests of executive functioning than children from low-income two parent homes (Sarsour et al., 2011). To further examine the effects of living in single parent households on the resident parent, the child, and their interaction, the authors examine the knowledge base and behavioral research on single parent families as well as highlight the contributions of the behavioral perspective in the design and implementation of model development research with single parent families with children under the age of 12.

The U.S. Census (2011) reports that in 2009, 27 % of children under 18-years-old lived with one parent. The presence of this experience continues to be more common among Black and Hispanic families; 21 % of white non-Hispanic children lived with a single parent, in comparison to 55 % of black children and 29 % of Hispanic (US Census, 2011). The vast majority of these families, 86 %, are headed by mothers, while single father homes represent only 4 % of single-parent households. The growth of single-parent homes is a result of death, divorce, separation, or non-marital child-bearing (US Census, 2011). As we see it, the major cause of children living outside traditional two-parent families is due to divorce (Boggess, 1998; Pong, Dronkers, & Hampden-Thompson, 2003) and an increase in births to unmarried parents (Copen, Daniels, & Mosher, 2013). While we further explicate the demographic factors and trends associated with single parent families in the problem analysis section below, we find it important to note that non-marital child-bearing has been a major concern among social workers and politicians, since the Great Society and War on Poverty federal programs of the 1960s and 1970s.

Outcome and survey research on parents and children from single-mother households reflects mixed results regarding child outcomes (Barkley, 2013; Chacko et al., 2009; Chronis, Chacko, Fabiano, Wymbs, & Pelham, 2004; Chacko, Anderson, Wymbs, & Wymbs, 2013; Chacko, Wymbs, Chimklis, Wymbs, & Pelham, 2012). Barkley (2013) and others (Chacko et al., 2009; Chronis et al., 2004) report less than favorable parent training outcomes for parents and children in single parent families compared to outcomes reported for two parent families. Ricciuti’s (2004) national longitudinal survey study of youth did not find evidence of any negative effects on children residing in single parent homes. On the contrary, East, Jackson, and O’Brien (2006) observe an association between single parent households and negative child outcomes. Sarsour et al. (2011) report that family income and single parent status were “interactively” correlated with poor executive function among children (p. 120). Also, they found that family income predicted executive function. The authors observed that single parent status was a potential moderator of the association between family income and executive functioning. They also found that a supportive home environment mediated the association between family income and executive functioning of children.

Along similar lines, Barber and Eccles (1992) suggest that the adversity tied to single parent households is amplified due to limited financial resources and low family income. In their influential book on the subject, McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) argue that children who grow up without two parents are deprived of “…important economic, parental, and community resources, […] these deprivations ultimately undermine their chance of future success” (p. 3). Thus, studies largely report that children from absent father families fare worse than their two-parent counterparts on a wide range of child development and well-being indicators.

The Role of Applied Behavior Analysis in Model Development Research with Single Parent Families

Parent training is part of the larger area of applied behavioral analysis and shares its goals and values. O’Dell (1974) summarizes this orientation:

Rather than theoretical validation, this area is concerned with applied techniques aimed at the development of a technology to solve socially relevant problems. Thus, it is not only concerned with theoretical models but with practice aspects such as cost, availability of resources, and efficiency of programs (p. 420).

The concept of parents as behavior therapists has been widely accepted by behavior analysts. Parents have been trained to modify a variety of specific behavior problems of children (Barkley, 2013; Carr, 2014), including aggressive behaviors (Patterson, Cobb, & Ray, 1973), enuresis (Foxx & Azrin, 1973; Graziano & Diamente, 1992), school phobias (Ayllon, Smith, & Rogers, 1970), noncompliance (Forehand, King, Peed, & Yoder, 1975; Malmberg, 2014), tantrums (Graziano & Diamente, 1992; Malmberg, 2014), and a variety of everyday home problems (Hall, Axelrod, Grief, Jones, & Robertson, 1972; Lindsley, 1966). Parent training has been investigated in terms of its effectiveness (Berkowitz & Graziano, 1972; Graziano & Diamente, 1992; Johnson & Katz, 1973; Malmberg, 2014; O’Dell, 1974), research methodology (Carr, 2014; Johnson & Bolstrad, 1973), and generality of intervention effects (Carr, 2014; Forehand & Atkeson, 1977; Nay, 1979).

Chief among the many contributions of applied behavior analysis to social work education, social work practice, and social work research can be traced back to Pinkston and Associates at The University of Chicago. She sought to enhance child development through intervening on the role of parents as change agents in the modification of problem child behavior (Briggs, Cox, Sharkey, Briggs, & Black, 2015; Briggs, Miller, Orellana, Briggs, & Cox, 2013; Briggs, Leary, Briggs, Cox, & Shibano, 2005; Holosko, in press). As she saw it, parents and primary caregivers play a crucial role in modifying child behaviors and hold the strongest level of influence over children under the age of 12 (Pinkston & Herbert-Jackson, 1975). She understood that issues related to child welfare and child development are central to social work. In the child welfare field of practice, Barth et al.’s (2005) review of effective parent-training techniques show that the most promising parenting approaches that have achieved the designation and possess the qualifications of a research supported treatment are typically based in a behavioral orientation (Briggs et al., 2015).

Beginning in the early 1970s, Elsie Pinkston combined the applied behavior analysis perspective with the problem solving process to teach intervention research to doctoral students and to establish the problem-oriented practice (POP) second year MSW program concentration to educate MSW practice students seeking mastery of clinical social work practice and practice model development research competencies in the School of Social Service Administration at the University of Chicago (Briggs, Briggs, & Briggs, under review; Briggs et al., 2015; Holosko, in press). Reid (2001), a model development research colleague of Pinkston in the School of Social Service Administration at The University of Chicago, remembers the onset of the early use of the behavioral perspective in social work as an approach with a unique view of the integration of “science and practice” (p. 37). Recognizing its emphasis on “behavior and environmental determinants,” Reid (2001, 2004) highlights the virtues of the behavioral perspective to social work practice and social work research. As he sees it, chief among the value of behaviorism to social work, according, to Reid (2001) includes: “an empirically grounded terminology, objective measures, and a distinctive methodology for conducting experiments on behavior change”(p. 37). He discusses how behavioral outcomes and the change processes directly “responsible for [them] could be isolated through the rigorous study of single cases”(p. 37). Pinkston’s POP approach to the education of social work students inextricably links theory with the abovementioned key research and practice components of the behavioral perspective into the social work problem solving process (Briggs, Briggs, Briggs, under review). Thus, Pinkston’s POP’s approach aligns with and incorporates the 6-step model dissertation development research approach defined by Reid (1979), Thomas (1978), Rothman and Thomas (1994). Next, we illustrate the contributions of Pinkston’s behaviorally based problem oriented practice perspective to her model development research with single-parent families of children, which include 6 key steps:

  • Step 1: Problem analysis

  • Step 2: Information gathering and synthesis

  • Step 3: Design intervention

  • Step 4: Early development and pilot testing

  • Step 5: Advanced development and evaluation

  • Step 6: Diffusion/dissemination

Step 1: Problem Analysis

According to Wattenberg and Reinhardt (1979), the number of children living with only one parent increased from 12 to 17 % between 1970 and 1977. In 1980, single-parent families represented about 19 % of all families in the United States, while in 2008 they represented 35 % of all families (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). The rise in the number of single-parent families is due to a bevy of conditions and considerations.

As alluded to above, demographic shifts in the rates of divorce (Paulin & Lee, 2002), separation, teenage births, female participation in the labor force, resistance to adoption (Kadushin, 1978), and increase in the number of females in the overall population contribute to the rise in the number of single-parent families. Further, single-parent families include parents who are divorced, separated, unmarried, cohabitating, widowed, single adoptive, and single-foster parents. Variations exist in the prevalence of single-parent families as a result of these and other factors such as race, gender, age, and ethnicity (Mendes, 1979).

According to the 2012 American Community Survey, 35 % of children under the age of 18 live in single-parent households. Although single-father families are on the rise, single-parent families are typically led by females. In 1980, single-mother families accounted for 18 % of households with children under 18 while single-father families accounted for only 2 % of these households (Paulin & Lee, 2002). By 2009, households with children under 18 headed by single-mother families increased to 24.3 % and single-father families increased to 4.8 % of these households (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).

Fluctuations in the rates of divorce and births to unmarried parents contribute to the rise in the prevalence of the single-parent family. Divorce rates peaked in the second half of the twentieth century with the highest rates in 1980 at 22.6 divorces for every 1000 marriages (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013a, b; Wilcox, 2009). Divorce rates and rates of remarriage are influenced by factors such as age, income, education, race, and presence of children as predictors whose influence varies by gender and race (Copen, Daniels, Vespa, & Mosher, 2012; Rodrigues, Hall, & Fincham, 2006). Single-parent families headed by a parent who has never married represents a large proportion of all single parents. These unmarried parents are likely to be white or African American (Copen et al., 2013).

Single-parent families are significantly more likely to experience poverty, particularly single-mother families. While spending patterns are reported to be the same for single-parent families led by fathers versus single-parent families led by mothers (Paulin & Lee, 2002), single-parent families headed by males are better off financially. In 2012, 16.4 % of single-father families and 31.8 % of households headed by single women were living in poverty, which is about five times greater than the 6.3 % of families headed by married couples living in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). These numbers are even more catastrophic when race is taken into consideration. Whereas the largest proportion of children living in single-mother households are white (38 %), approximately 35 % of white children with single-mother households live at or below the poverty line compared to a a staggering 66 % of African American children living in single-mother households (Shattuck & Kreider, 2013; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Okech, Howard, Mauldin, Mimura, and Kim (2012) report the inextricably linked interrelationship between financial stringency, challenged resiliency, and threatened family well-being. The myriad of factors that affect single-parent families and their various challenges pose challenges for policymakers and social services to begin to address their needs (Mather, 2010; East et al., 2006; Sarsour et al., 2011).

Step 2: Information Gathering and Synthesis

Behavioral research demonstrates the vulnerability of single-parent families to a number of stress related circumstances. Not only are children negatively impacted but the single parent is also susceptible to problems that include feelings of isolation (Atkins, 2010; Gottlieb, 1997; Maccoby, 1977; Weiss, 1975), lack of support in child management (Brandwein, Brown, & Fox, 1974), role and leadership strain (Blechman & Manning, 1976; Coyne, 2002; Schorr & Moen, 1979). The interwoven stress that comes from learning to parent and the attention it can necessitate during work hours creates tensions and demands at work, thereby causing the single parent to have to divide their attention between work and home, losing focus in both arenas that negatively impact the family income (Coyne, 2002; Schorr & Moen, 1979).

Blechman and Manning (1976) define leader strain within a reward-costs analysis as “the behavioral consequences of a situation in which one leader must carry out disparate tasks which overburden his or her available time and energy” (p. 72). They go on to emphasize that behavioral diversity of single-parent families is a result of demographic factors, but also bring attention to one common factor among all single-parent families. Blechman and Manning (1976) indicate that “the group composition of the single-parent family, a common denominator of all single-parent families, imposes selective access to reinforcers and selective changes in the behaviors of single-parent families” (p. 61).

For example, both single-parent mothers and single-parent fathers perform housekeeping responsibilities assisted by their children, independent of income differences between single fathers and single mothers (Orthner, 1976; Vann-Johnson, 2004). These common activities that are typically performed by single-parent families suggest that an intervention program could be developed that could effectively meet certain common needs while considering the diversity in behavioral contingencies among this target population. Too often, social science research and clinical practice focus on the deviance and pathology which accompany this group and pay little attention to their treatment needs (Blechman & Manning, 1976).

There is an increasing body of intervention strategies for single-parent headed families (Barkley, 2013). The rise in the use of research supported treatment approaches to parent training and shifts in industry best practices away from a psychodynamic based, mother-blaming orientation to a strength orientation with a culturally competent, evidenced-based approach to problem solving with vulnerable families has provided social workers access to effective parent-training approaches that share a robust research and behavioral foundation (Barth et al., 2005).

Step 3: Design of Intervention

The social work literature does contain resources that support and direct the development of a systematic, educational, group approach to single parent–child interactions. Since Glasser and Navarre (1965), the single-parent family as a social structure dictating certain functions and consequences has been examined. They defined family structure as a “valuable intervening between the opportunity system and the socialization process” (p. 109). The family’s conceptualization permits the analysis of environmental and situational factors with which to generate specific intervention procedures. Alterations to the existing family structure, such as in the case of divorce, impacts the roles and interactional sequences of a family and may cause disorganization. In a 5-year longitudinal study of the impact of divorce on children and adolescents, Wallerstein and Kelly (1979) examined middle-class children in northern California that were not considered at risk prior to their parents’ separation. They found evidence of behavioral and psychological deterioration in one-half of the pre-school and nearly one-quarter of the latency-aged (roughly ages 6 to puberty) children 18 months after the parents’ divorce. Wallerstein and Kelly noted that the deterioration in the children’s behaviors were primarily related to family disorganization characterized by inconsistency in discipline and changes in child management, such as diminished communication, stated expectations of responsible behavior and nurturance. This replicates the findings of Hetherington, Cox, and Cox (1978) who also observed a breakdown in family functioning following divorce. Both studies identified the need for interventions that provide educational support to parents about their children’s emotional and behavioral needs.

Parent education groups have been utilized in social work to alter parent–child interaction difficulties and problems (Samuelson, 2010). Wittes and Radin (1971) taught two groups of low-income mothers the planned control of consequences through the use of group discussion and home demonstration. A parent training manual, Living with Children by Patterson and Gullion (1973), was adopted for use by McPherson and Samuels (1971) to help parents focus on specific child behaviors. Brief treatment models have been advanced for individual and group applications (Collins & Fetsch, 2012; Garvin, Reid, & Epstein, 1978; Reid & Epstein, 1972). Golner (1971) specified five basic elements of home-based family interventions: (1) responsibility of key persons, (2) the home as the setting for treatment, (3) focus on here and now interactions, (4) active problem-solving efforts, and (5) emphasis on family member strengths.

In summary, the social work literature contains conceptual and practical antecedents for the development of a didactic group approach to parent–child interaction problems. The field of applied behavior analysis provides a theoretical base and concomitant research methodology with which to guide the construction of a practice model (Barkley, 2013). Historical as well as recent social work literature provide evidence of the increased utilization of behavior modification methods and single-case design research methods in both the education of social work students, as well as in the actual social service of clinical social workers. It provides a framework for organizing a functional relationship across a broad array of social problems while operationalizing the key drivers that initiate, as well as sustain, problem conditions. It allows for the objective evaluation of the change process as a built in check and balance system that ensures accountability to the child and family. Behavioral models have been presented from sociobehavioral (Thomas, 1978), constructional (Schwartz & Goldiamond, 1975), and planned behavior change perspectives (Fischer & Gochros, 1975). Intervention studies have included investigations of parent–child interactions (Briggs et al., 2015; Pinkston & Herbert-Jackson, 1975) and scores of other behaviors which are of key interest to behavioral researchers and are always published in journals based in a strong behavioral theoretical tradition, including for example, the Journal of Applied Analysis and the Journal of Behavior and Social Issues.

Behavioral theory has informed and shaped social work methods for group practice. Briar and Miller (1971) credit the use of educational principles and scientific foundations of behavioral theory as reasons for its value to group practice in social work. General theoretical or conceptual frameworks for behavioral groups have been presented (Aronowitz & Weinberg, 1966; Frankel & Glasser, 1974; Rose, 1977). Practice methods and models have been devised for adults (Lawrence & Sundel, 1972), children (LaGreca & Santagrossi, 1980; Rose, 1972), parents (Rose, 1974), social competence (Alvord, Zucker, & Grados, 2011; Rose & Schinke, 1976); and the aged (Linsk, Howe, & Pinkston, 1975). Controlled outcome studies of behavioral group treatment have been reported for parent training (Danforth, Harvey, Ulaszek, & McKee, 2006; Rose, 1974) and adult problem solving (Forgatch & DeGarmo, 1997; Lawrence & Walter, 1978).

The behavioral group is seen as both a context and a means of treatment, which may heighten intervention effects (Skinner, 1938; Frankel &Glassner, 1974; Rose, 1977). Findings from small group research and practice wisdom argue that: (a) when attractive to its members, the group pressures them to conform to group norms and therapeutic demands (Rose, 1977); (b) multiple membership increases opportunities for learning, feedback, and social reinforcement (Alvord et al., 2011; Lawrence & Sundel, 1972; Rose, 1974); (c) in terms of costs, time, and personnel, the group is more efficient (Frankel &Glassner, 1974; Rose 1974).

The single-parent group training program (SPG) employs the tools and research techniques of behavioral parent training to develop a home based, contingency management practice model directed to the needs of single-parent families.

Step 4: Early Development and Pilot Testing

Five assumptions frame the foundation of the SPG. First, the parent’s behavior is the primary source of material and social reinforcement opportunities for children in the home under the age of 12 (Patterson, 1973; Pinkston & Herbert-Jackson, 1975). Second, undesirable child behavioral contingencies can be rearranged and eliminated through changing the nature and frequency of parent attention, which necessitates that parents receive training as the focus of intervention (Berkowitz & Graziano, 1972; Graziano & Diamente, 1992; Johnson & Katz, 1973). Third, demographic and ecological characteristics are setting events that selectively expose the individual or family to classes of reinforcers and selectively reinforce behaviors, but are not viewed as causes of irreversible structural change in the individual or family (Bijou & Baer, 1966; Blechman & Manning, 1976). Fourth, an emphasis on prevention and the delivery of training to parents to prepare them as future problem solvers as opposed to future service seekers (Walder et al., 1971). Fifth, it is feasible to adapt parent-training procedures for use with one-parent families headed by mothers ( Berkowitz & Graziano, 1972). The SPG was an extension of the Parent Education Program (PEP), a model of parent training previously devised and evaluated (Pinkston, Levitt, et al., 1982).

Friedman (1979) and Cox’s (1982) pilot studies of the early implementation of the SPG reflected the following observations:

  • Parents who completed the training and parents who dropped out of training reported some difficulty in observing and documenting child behaviors.

  • Home observation forms and procedures were simplified as a result of the difficulty encountered by parents during the pilot testing of the SPG.

  • Parents who completed the SPG were able to reduce parent–child interaction problems.

  • The methods, procedures, and measurement tools used in the SPG were rated as acceptable.

  • The SPG provided opportunities for social resources, and reimbursement for costs associated with transportation and child-care.

As depicted in (Table 1) (Cox, 1982), there are a number of interrelated phases involved with the implementation of the SPG program model.

Table 1 Single-parent training group program model procedures
Full size table

Initial Phase

Setting

The location will serve as a space for group meetings, as well as a site where other objectives of the program may be performed, such as periodic reliability checks and should be familiar and convenient for potential participants (e.g., community organizations, neighborhood schools, or health centers).

Recruitment and Referrals

In order to recruit an adequate number of program participants, workers may need to establish buy-in from community organizations, agencies, and other potential referral sources through educating these sources about program specifics in person. In these meetings, workers must communicate the crucial components of the program, which are outlined on the single parent program (SPP) Checklist.

Outreach and Recruitment

Referral sources will use the SPP Checklist to share information about the program with prospective participants. The person making the referral must complete the checklist for each referral and return it to the project along with a brief description of the presenting problem and the contact information for each of the prospective parents. Group facilitators will conduct a telephone interview with the parents in order to explain the program in further detail using the SPP checklist, establish a working relationship with the parent, identify the participants’ goals while briefly assessing the family, and introduce the assessment materials to be completed and returned by the parent.

Pre-Group Assessment (SPG I)

Home Interview One

The worker will use assessment materials (Questionnaire, Behavior Checklist, and Behavior Log) to conduct a 2-hour in-home interview with the parent, which will be guided by the Group Baseline Session Checklist to explore the parent’s current concerns and identify goals and target behaviors. Following this discussion, when the worker has an initial grasp of the presenting problem, the worker will again outline the program, stress the educational, sociobehavioral framework, and detail the parent’s obligations. The worker explains and administers the index of parental attitude (IPA) and Index of Self-Esteem (ISE) scales (Hudson, 1982a, b), as is the procedure throughout the program. The worker then assists the parent in identifying presenting problem child behaviors, target behaviors, and household tasks as the nonperformance of chores is often a significant source of discord between parents and children. Behavior is described in recognizable terms to the parent, often in their own language.

Next, the worker presents the program documentation procedures as outlined in the Home Observation Form used to observe and document their responses and the Program Overview, which includes instructions, illustrations of the documentation process, and an outline for at least one reliability check for every treatment condition in order to maintain reliability in the study and evaluate the accuracy of the definitions and recordings. A Treatment Contract and the Consent for Participation in a Research Project form is presented and constitutes informed consent as it outlines the requirements of both the worker and the parent (Stein & Gambrill, 1985). Finally, the worker demonstrates the call-in process in order to overcome parental anxiety and increase compliance and provides the parent with a Fun Time List, the child reinforcer evaluation timetable, and schedules the next interview.

Home Interview Two

In order to accurately measure baseline, a second interview lasting up to one and a half hours is conducted in the home. IPA and ISE scales and a pre-test in the form of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI) Child Management questionnaire are administered either at the start or finish of the interview, as well as a post-test at a later date. The second interview allows the worker to clarify any outstanding questions in this area while also increasing their comprehension of the home and parent–child relations. Finally, the worker provides the group Guidelines Form that summarizes pro-treatment norms and sought-after conduct for group members for the parent to sign and written announcement of specifics of the weekly group meetings, such as time and location. Additional pre-group meetings may be required under a variety of circumstances, such as an incomplete Home Interview Two or lasting problems with the code. For instance, although Mrs. L from SPG II (Briggs et al., 2013; Cox, 1982) had a high reliability score, she reported that she continued to experience trouble using the code.

Step 5 Advanced Development and Evaluation

According to Cox (1982), limitations of SPG I were observed and related to the setting of unrealistic goals for each training meeting. Beginning with the first group meeting, the plan was that parents were expected to specify and operationalize problem behaviors, begin the baseline observations in the home, and implement behavior change procedures. The specifying of behavioral problems took more time than anticipated. Group participants could not complete this task in one training session. Additional time was spent by parents wanting to get acquainted, socialize others to their home situation, and using time to share and process their feelings about group participation. The decision to begin intervention and teach behavioral principles and techniques in the second group meeting presented additional limitations. Baseline data collected during the previous week may not have been adequate to aid in treatment planning and suitable for use in comparing the frequency of target behaviors during baseline and intervention phases. In one case, the parent required more than a week or two of baseline data before the correct intervention could be selected. In another case, a parent was prematurely exposed to training in behavior change procedures before completing the assessment phase. The timing of group training meetings were subject to cancellation due to the holiday seasons and inclement weather, which interfered with the collection of data and consistency of group training. The strengths of the group format and the successful experiences of two of the three parents in SPG I justified revisions of the SPG for further testing.

Group Training (SPG II)

Group Meeting One

The group training portion of the program consists of a specified number of 2-h group sessions. Initially, guidelines, SPG methods and goals, and a review of program requirements are reviewed together. As this program follows an educational framework, handouts and instructional material using plain language handouts is provided and workers explain positive reinforcement, extinction, time-out, and response cost and point (token) systems in a short lecture of no more than 0.5 h. “Lectures” are followed by group discussions about objectives, parent behavioral techniques, and any questions. Of particular importance are instances where parents respond with negative attention to unwanted conduct, which the workers point out may serve as positive reinforcement of the behavior. The therapist contrasts these instances with those where preferred conduct receives no attention and therefore dwindles, as in the case of extinction. Parental response is now reframed as a contributing variable in the interaction, stressing the interaction instead of the individuals (Gambrill & Richey, 1975; Watzlawic, Weakland, & Fiisch, 1974). Most accounts of behavioral parent training systems disregard this approach (Atkeson & Forehand, 1980; Patterson, Reid, Jones, & Conger, 1975).

Following this discussion, parents meet with workers individually to decide upon their treatment plan. Group leaders attempt to identify potential opposition from parents in order to select the plan that is likely to produce the most compliance. The strongest plan with the least resistance is chosen to increase the chances of immediate and measurable success and is outlined on the Behavioral Objectives form. Not only does this form provide the plan for the next week, but it also operates as a contract between the parents and workers. Further, the Fun Time List outlines additional methods of behavior reinforcement. Following the discussion of treatment plans, the group leaders remind members of the next upcoming reliability check, as well as a “feedback session,” and reinforce their participation.

Feedback Session

Following the first group session, the staff conduct an in-home reliability check and feedback session. After monitoring the reliability check, the therapist will provide noncritical feedback as to the following of instructions and the application of skills, noting the parent’s use of timeout rather than attention. This feedback session allows the therapist to ensure the accurate use of procedures and remedy mistakes through the use of positive verbal reinforcement for accurate application.

Group Meeting Two

Group members complete IPA and ISE scales and receive verbal reinforcement for the consistent recording and execution of treatment directives. Group feedback discussions reviews the previous week’s data, addresses concerns and provides verbal social reinforcement, behavior role-plays, and praise parents for complying with group process. Group lessons pertaining to parenting and behavior concepts continue and are reinforced through role-plays in which they take turns playing the parent and child roles. In addition, a discussion of difficulties regarding data collection takes place. The leaders again reinforce the members’ participation before ending the session. As in the first session, parents meet individually with trainers to review progress graphs, discuss and revise treatment plans, and create a new behavioral contract on the Behavioral Objectives form.

Group Meeting Three

Group members complete the assessment scales, continue role-plays to practice reinforcement techniques, especially those regarding timeout, behavioral contracts, verbal conduct, and household work, and discusses the use of point systems. Again, parents meet with workers individually to discuss the week’s developments and to adjust the treatment plan and contract, as needed.

Group Meeting Four: Termination

As in prior sessions, group members complete the assessment scales at the start of the meeting. The leaders then request that the parents complete the MCRI Child Management Questionnaire (post-test). The group then reviews the data recordings from the past week. The leaders highlight and compliment the progress each family has made in the past week and throughout the program. The leaders use standard termination techniques to encourage members to share their admiration for each other and their gratitude for the support they have provided one another (Garvin et al., 1978; Rose, 1977). The leaders inform the group that they are willing to stay in contact with the families, either formally as a part of the study and data collection process or informally, and parents will be asked to complete a follow-up interview as well as record a week of their interactions with their children again in 6 months.

Post-Training Assessment

Consumer Satisfaction

An independent party interviews each participant for one to one- and a half hours using an adaptation of the Single-Parents Program Survey (Friedman, 1979), which includes a parental assessment of the group training. Potential commonalities are used to match interviewers with participants in order to encourage an open and honest assessment (Goldstein, 1980). The interview must be recorded, either through audiotape or extensive notation, and take place four months after the final meeting of SPG II with parents receiving an incentive. Both social treatment (Reid & Smith, 1978) and applied behavior analysis (Wolf, 1978) encourage surveying the perceptions of program participants.

Follow-Up

Six months following completion of the program, participants are asked to again complete the self-report assessment scales and record their observations of their parent–child interactions for at least 4 days with one reliability check. As a post-test, the participants also complete Behavior Checklists. This data collection allows workers to assess the long-term effectiveness of the program.

Effective parent-training programs incorporate behavioral theory and applied behavioral analysis and have contributed immensely to the rise in evidence-based programs. Such interventions have been used to address problem child behaviors (Briggs et al., 2005, 2013) and even addressing mandated parents interfacing with the child welfare system (Smagner & Sullivan, 2005).

A recent systematic review (Briggs et al., 2015) details single-parent training program interventions as developed by Pinkston, Polster, et al. (1982b) that resulted in empirical evidence for the efficacy of behavioral modification training and psychoeducation as guided by behavioral theory (Friedman, 1979). In their review, Briggs and colleagues (in press) evaluated all relevant studies of Pinkston, Polster, et al. (1982b) single-parent training group (SPG) interventions model and its application in the home environment for pre-adolescent children ages 5–12. The SPG model, which balances psychoeducation and behavioral training methodology, provided empirical evidence for the efficacy of the ability for single parents to elicit change in child behavior using positive reinforcement, differentiation, and attainable behavioral goals. Briggs and colleagues (in press) conducted independent full-reviews with N = 7 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The seven relevant studies included 25 unique single-parent child dyad cases and findings were synthesized qualitatively and coded using five primary SPG content themes: (1) Change in Rate of Positive Parent Attention; (2) Change in Rate of Negative Parent Attention; (3) Change in Rate of Child Compliance; (4) Change in Rate of Child Chore Completion; (5) Change in Nature of Parent–Child Dyad. All of the relevant studies examined common themes of SPG behavioral modification techniques, including positive reinforcement, positive and negative attending behaviors, differential attention/attitude, compliant and noncompliant behaviors, household responsibilities/chores, “prompt and praise” and “praise and ignore” techniques, contracting, and token/reward systems. The studies included single-parent headed families conducting the program model based on referrals from agency and school social workers (Briggs et al., 2005, 2013; Cox, 1982; Friedman, 1979; Shibano, Cox, Rzepnicki, & Pinkston, 1982; Shibano, 1983), state public welfare agencies (Briggs et al., 2013; Smagner & Sullivan, 2005), and as an opportunity to fulfill court mandates for open child-welfare cases (Smagner & Sullivan, 2005).

In their systematic review, Briggs and colleagues (in press) found that the SPG model in these seven studies provided evidence for increased rates of positive parental attention, significant reduction and in many cases complete elimination of the use of negative attention, moderate improvement of rates of child compliance, consistent increase in rates of chore completion, and significant improvements on the nature of the parent–child dyad, including increased parental self-esteem, improved development of conflict resolution skills, and notable changes to parents’ reports of self-control. Briggs and colleagues (in press) state:

These findings point to the importance of the interrelated complementary and balancing aspects of SPG. The reduction of negative parental attention in combination to increased differential attention and positive reinforcers provided the most correlative evidence for successful child behavioral modification that contributed to improved family functioning (p. 16).

In these relevant studies, findings showed that the effectiveness of the intervention depended on the consistency of the parents’ application of the prescribed behavior modification methods, with evidence showing that in cases with coercive parent–child relationships and inconsistent carrying out of protocol, there was only nominal changes to the children’s problem behaviors. Overall, the review’s findings indicate the efficacy of group trainings for single parents in both the group training phase, in which parents reported increased feelings of relief and support for the shared parental experiences, and the individualized parent training and intervention phases, in which the incorporation of consistent behavioral modification skills directly correlated to increased rates of desired behavioral outcomes (Briggs et al., in press).

Parent-training programs that incorporate behavioral theory and applied behavioral analysis clearly provide an evidentiary basis for addressing the modification of problematic child behaviors by also focusing on the acquisition of increased parental knowledge about behavioral theory, the development of positive parenting skills, increasing social support with other parents and change agents, and the utilization of behavioral techniques that help to increase interpersonal interactions among family members. These approaches foster positive reinforcing behaviors and increased differentiation to both model and encourage desired behavior through positive interpersonal interactions, concepts that are deeply rooted in behavioral theory (Pinkston, Polster, et al. 1982b) and child development theories (Bijou & Baer, 1966; Marcus, Swanson, & Vollmer, 2001; Webster-Stratton & Herbert, 1993). The resulting research evidence indicates the ability for parents from diverse backgrounds to increase positive behaviors, child compliance, desired social interactions, and family functioning that has long-lasting effects (Briggs et al., in press). Further, the evidence indicates that the acquisition of these skills and the emphasis on controlled behavior can have strong implications for addressing a multitude of variable systemic issues that impact at-risk individuals by providing behavioral coping skills to address personal, societal, political, and organizational issues.

Step 6: Diffusion/Dissemination

To aid in the reduction of child negative behaviors and increases in the prevalence of child abuse and neglect cases in Japan, Shibano (2004) reports the use of the single parent group training methods developed by Pinkston (Pinkston, Polster, et al. 1982b; Shibano et al., 1982) along with Thomas (1978) and Rothman and Thomas’ (1994) approach to research development and utilization to disseminate methods to a children’s center in Kobe, Japan. It was his intent to diseminate this approach to effective parenting to its 105 affiliated children’s centers to promote child protection and to avoid child abuse and neglect. Shibano (2004) reports that the local regional government funded a grant for the dissemination of a modified version of the behavioral group parent training program originally developed by Pinkston, Polster, et al. (1982b). Upon review of the evaluation of disseminating the program, it was reported that the full program was implemented in the main children’s center and by other affiliate centers but not adopted widespread. Although, a total of 4000 parents from the 105 Kobe children’s centers participated in the program. Adoption of the behavioral group training program was thwarted due to the: (a) lack of funding for implementing the full program, (b) perceived complexities of the full scale program and (c) limited staff resources needed to implement it. Some 37 % of the total number of children’s centers in Kobe found the program difficult to administer, 27 % of them found the program easy to administer. While the full program was not adopted, some of the children’s centers used modules contained within the behavioral group training program. To aid in dissemination, an interactive multimedia manual which included a CD-ROM that included a manual and video-clips of all of the independent training modules was developed by Shibano and colleagues. Web site development was completed to enable Japanese parents access to the interactive parent training manual. To enhance and maximize the utility of the program, Shibano (2004) reported the use of evaluation results from the implementation of the behavioral group training program “for improvement of the disseminated program”(p. 155).

More than 20 years following Pinkston’s initial development of the single parent group training program, Smagner, a former student of Pinkston (Smagner & Sullivan, 2005), successfully used the single parent group training program with 11 single parent and child dyads involved with a local child welfare authority to improve parent and child interaction.

Discussion and Implications

For social work practice, there is a significant need for reliable and valid evidence-based programs that can be utilized for clients with complex, multi-faceted issues. Interventions that are oriented within a theoretical framework that can help to shape the development of effective practice while taking into consideration the layered systemic issues and obstacles to treatment adherence best address the needs of diverse clients (Marsh, 2004). Collaborative intervention strategies that are shaped by both practitioner and client expertise (Johnson & Austin, 2006), theory, and ethics (Briggs & Rzepnicki, 2004) are more versitile for agencies in a range of settings while maintaining reliable, best-practices standards. As social work engages individuals, families, and communities in fluid and flexible ways, the rigidity of conventional research often cannot be feasible and appropriately applied to clients within their varied environments. From a practice standpoint, social work change agents often view the push for research supported treatments beginning in the 1960s as an unrealistic move into defending the profession by arming it with empirical evidence that legitimizes best practice through scientific methodology and are therefore reluctant to take up crucial time evaluating evidence that may or may not inform practice (Okpych & Yu, 2014). Kuhn (1970) describes this phase in social research as a “period of pronounced professional insecurity” and notes the gradual acceptance of a balance of theory, empirical evidence, and best practices in subsequent decades (pp. 67–68). Indeed, evidence-based research steeped in the theoretical understanding of human behavior within the social environment with both quantitative and qualitative data to ensure applicability and reliability most thoroughly guide best practices and yet few agencies and social workers are able to conduct research projects that further the understanding of behavioral interventions for ever-diversifying client populations. Conducting future theory driven model development research with diverse single families will not set the profession backwards. To the contrary, it will move us from the infancy stages of cultural competence research to an advanced stage of knowledge development based in more rigorous and robust hypothesis testing and confirmatory analysis and research methodologies.

Yet, it is imperative that social workers training in accredited master degree programs become properly oriented to the increasing need to capture data and contribute to the knowledge base in a way that helps to advance practice and increase the overall professionalization of the field (Sabatino, Kelly, Moriarty, & Lean, 2013). Such efforts reflect the NASW Code of Ethics (2008) and help to move practice from “care as usual” into approaches that are both applicable and validating. Further, the marriage of theory, evidence, and best practice encourages more rigorous ongoing evaluation procedures that act as a ‘checks-and-balances’ for intentional and effective care (Williams & Sherr, 2013). This paradigm also helps to elevate the importance of practitioners who are deeply engaged in active intervention and treatment of clients regardless of post-MSW degrees by re-emphasizing the integral role mixed methods case study research approaches have for social sciences and the growing demand from funding agencies for studies that include collaborations of practitioners and researchers (Brekke et al., 2009). Future theory driven model development research with single families will advance the families and our own understanding of the wrong contingencies that parents resort to resulting in sustaining non-compliant child behaviors and parent and child interactions (Baer, 2004). This type of practice research will also aid families and social workers to realize the right contingencies to arrange that ultimately leads to and sustains compliance and desirable child behaviors and parent and child interactions (Baer, 2004).

As the SPG program model detailed in this article demonstrates, the 6-step model development approach to assessing client needs for behavioral modification is grounded in behavioral theory and utilizes an intervention research approach with ongoing evaluation techniques to assure positive client outcomes. The program model incorporates a natural flexibility that helps the practitioner customize the intervention strategy to clients’ various needs that assures active participation and motivation to participate. This program model also respects clients’ self-determination and works to address social justice issues that might impede their ability to otherwise engage in a change practice. Such collaboration and integration of theory, evidence, and practice is not only a strength for the field of social work, but a niche that can help to redefine the advancement of systemic, socially just, and empowering care for clients with multi-faceted issues that threaten the well-being of diverse single parent families. This is particularly salient for diverse populations that experience a dearth of supportive and informed services. There is the need for social work professionals to continue to contribute to the growing body of theory driven-cultural specific- evidence informed research, particularly as it concerns the well-being of underrepresented and vulnerable populations. Additional practice research efforts are needed to establish dependable behavior change approaches that result in relieving suffering among marginalized groups such as diverse single parent families with young children. Sadly, solutions to addressing their plight and threats to their overall well-being are not well documented in recent publications on research-supported treatments, which suggests that more attention be paid by the profession of social work to the unique circumstances and needs of diverse single parent families with children younger than age 12.

All in all, future behavioral theory driven model development research involving cultural specific single parent families will be value added to social work. It will provide a number of advantages to enhancing the profession’s ability to work successfully with diverse families. Future behavioral theory driven model development research will broaden social work’s ability to develop cultural competent practice models and practitioner skill capacities to effectively assist these vulnerable families in: (a) recognizing and eliminating the wrong behavioral contingencies that maintain non-compliant child behaviors and negative attention from parents, (b) establishing the right behavioral contingencies in relieving child management parental stressors, while (c) concomitantly achieving enhanced family interaction and child well-being (Baer, 2004).