Study: Collaborative Proactive Solutions (CPS) as good as Parent Management Training (PMT)

[Tom Adams]

A randomized control trial finds that CPS is as good as PMT.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15374416.2015.1004681#.Va0v6_lVhBd

CPS was developed by Ross Greene and is presented in the book "The Explosive Child".

Note that there is a split in CPS.  Greene was forced out of the original Mass. General Hospital (MGH) program and he

was told MGH has the copyright to the name Collaborative Problem Solving.   So Greene changed the name his version

a bit and kept the acronym.  The MGH web site is here:

http://www.thinkkids.org/

The CPS motto is "Skills nor Will".  One can argue that PMT is all motivation and no skills training.  CPS takes the position that kids with behavior problems are already motivated to behave well but they don't have the required skills.

However, when I analyze CPS, I see that their Plan C is equivalent to Planned Ignoring which is a component of PMT.  Also, CPS rules dictates that the parent should not engage in problem solving as an immediate reaction to the problem behavior, again similar to Planned Ignoring.  So, CPS, like, PMT avoids the common parenting practice of motivating unwanted behavior by reinforcing it with knee-jerk instant parental attention.  CPS at least avoids inadvertent counterproductive motivation.

Also there are already studies of approaches that include skills training along with PMT.

Also, there more than dozen of RCTs of PMT.  CPS is relatively new, PMT was used as a positive control in the study I cite at the top.

Also, this RTC might not be as independent of the CPS originators as one would like

That said, I think it's true that using only motivation can be a mistake, that sometimes skills training can be important.  For instance, study skills and other learning strategies can be better than only trying to motivate reinforce or punish grade performance.   Also the timing is all wrong with quarterly grades, too much time between the effort and the contingency.  One might be able to motivate some short-term aspects related to school performance, at most.

[Tom Adams]

The motto is "Skills Not Will".  Sorry for the typo.

[Dave Orr]

It seems pretty obvious that skills development is important. Imagine trying to ride a bike when you're really motivated but have no skill.

Where I think motivation matters a ton, though, is that acquiring and using skills doesn't happen without motivation. So I think you need to consider those as supporting one another: kids needs to develop the life skills to deal with whatever, and the drive and motivation to learn and apply those skills. You need both, and as parents we need to support them in both arenas.

- Dave

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Less Wrong Parents" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to less-wrong-pare...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Tom Adams]

Yes, it's obvious that you need both.  But each method assumes that either skill or motivation is not lacking.

In a case of a 4 year old throwing tantrums, is this a matter of lack of motivation or a lack of skill?  Pure PMT operates on the assumption that motivation is lacking or that the tantrums are being motivated inadvertently by the parents.   CPS operates on the assumption that the kid has some sort of developmental delay that has to be addressed by skills training.  Pure PMT assumes the kid is capable of ceasing the tantrums. CPS assumes that kid just naturally wants to do the right thing but is not capable of doing the right thing.

[Tom Adams]

Another study comparing upstart CPS with "gold standard" PMT is planned:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-03-clinical-trials-treatments-children-behaviour.html

probably another randomized control trial.

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 2:05:13 PM UTC-4, Tom Adams wrote: