Family Check-Up
At a glance
Country of origin
- USA
Level(s) of intervention
- Indicated prevention
The Family Check-Up (FCU) is a parent management training (PMT) intervention targeting parents of children with conduct issues. The intervention focuses on enhancing specific parenting skills and is part of the second generation of parent training programs designed to reduce externalizing behaviour problems, substance use, and child depression.
FCU is based on the Oregon PMT model but has been designed to be ecologically more valid as it is tailored to the needs and motivation of families, grounded in a structured assessment and feedback phase during the first three sessions. Essential elements of the intervention include a norm-referenced assessment, an observational session with the parent and child and a feedback session delivered using motivational interviewing.
The FCU begins with an assessment phase that evaluates family strengths and risks, summarized in a family profile used for feedback. This phase includes three sessions: a brief interview and introduction to the model, a recording of interactions between a parent and the child in specific situations and a feedback session to discuss the family profile. The next phase involves tailored interventions based on the family’s needs and motivation. Parent training interventions, categorized into three skill areas: supporting positive behaviour, setting healthy limits and building family relationships are suggested and selected based on the needs and motivation identified during the feedback session. In an extended clinical context, other available evidence-based interventions can also be considered.
Ghaderi et al. (2018) conducted a study in Sweden to evaluate the effectiveness of the Family Check-Up (FCU) in a randomized controlled trial. They compared a group that received the FCU intervention with a group that received the internet-based parent-training program iComet. The study involved 231 families with children aged 10-13 who exhibited conduct problems. The primary aim was to assess and compare the outcomes of these interventions, with follow-ups at 1 and 2 years post-treatment
Links to this programme in other registries
Implementation Experiences
Read the experiences of people who have implemented this programme.
Contact details
Alyssa Schneider
PO Box 5175 Eugene, OR 97405. 415-685-0023
Alyssa[at]nwpreventionscience.org
Overview of results from the European studies
Studies overview
Ghaderi and colleagues’ main research goal was to compare the effects of FCU to iComet for children and adolescents (10–13 years old) with conduct problems, on externalizing behaviours, social adaptation, family conflict and warmth, and general psychological health, as reported by themselves, their parents and teachers. They found that both FCU and iComet showed short- and long-term effects on the main outcome variables. For conduct problems, the short-term effect size was large (d = 1.10, p = 0.001) and showed a significant interaction effect (d = 0.30, p = 0.02) in favor of the Family Check-Up compared to iComet. Inattention showed moderate short-term effect sizes (d = 0.58, p = 0.001) with no significant interaction. For impulsivity/hyperactivity problems, the short-term effect size was moderate (d = 0.69, p = 0.001) with no significant interaction.
Parents (but not children or teachers) reported enhancements on several of the secondary outcome variables in the expected directions both for the FCU and the iComet (emotional symptoms, peer problems, prosocial behaviors, child secrecy and disclosure, family warmth and family conflict). Neither the FCU nor the iComet significantly improved parental knowledge, parental solicitation, parental control, or the quality of the relationship between the parents. A significantly larger proportion of children in the FCU recovered compared to the iComet both from pre- to post-treatment and at 1-year follow-up with regard to oppositional defiant behaviours as defined by the Disruptive Behaviour Disorders Rating Scale. Although this pattern was seen at a 2-years follow-up as well, the difference was not statistically significant (Ghaderi et al., 2018).
Countries where evaluated
- Sweden
Characteristics
Protective factor(s) addressed
- Family: Verbal reasoning / non-violent parent-child discipline
- Family: attachment to and support from parents
- Family: opportunities/rewards for prosocial involvement with parents
- Family: positive family management
Risk factor(s) addressed
- Family: family management problems
- Family: family conflict
Outcomes targeted
- Depression or anxiety
- Social behaviour (including conduct problems)
- Positive relationships
- Substance use
Description of programme
Implementation Experiences
Implementation Experiences
Sweden
Contact details
Name: Patric Bengtsson
Email: patric.bengtsson[at]vgregion.se
