Time-Out with Young Children: A Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) Practitioner Review

Time-out is a component of many evidence-based parent training programmes for the treatment of childhood conduct problems. Existing comprehensive reviews suggest that time-out is both safe and effective when used predictably, infrequently, calmly and as one component of a collection of parenting strategies—i.e., when utilised in the manner advocated by most parent training programmes. However, this research evidence has been largely oriented towards the academic community and is often in conflict with the widespread misinformation about time-out within communities of parents, and within groups of treatment practitioners. This dissonance has the potential to undermine the dissemination and implementation of an effective suite of treatments for common and disabling childhood conditions. The parent-practitioner relationship is integral to the success of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT), an evidence-based treatment which involves live coaching of parent(s) with their young child(ren). Yet this relationship, and practitioner perspectives, attitudes and values as they relate to time-out, are often overlooked. This practitioner review explores the dynamics of the parent-practitioner relationship as they apply to the teaching and coaching of time-out to parents. It also acknowledges factors within the clinical setting that impact on time-out’s use, such as the views of administrators and professional colleagues. The paper is oriented toward practitioners of PCIT but is of relevance to all providers of parent training interventions for young children.

Barriers to Clinician Implementation of Parent–Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) in New Zealand and Australia: What Role for Time-Out?

Background: Parent–Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) is an effective parent training approach for a commonly occurring and disabling condition, namely conduct problems in young children. Yet, despite ongoing efforts to train clinicians in PCIT, the intervention is not widely available in New Zealand and Australia. Methods: We undertook a cross-sectional online survey of clinicians in New Zealand and Australia who had completed at least the 40-h initial PCIT training, to understand the barriers they encountered in their implementation efforts, and the extent to which attitudes toward time-out influenced implementation. The overall response rate was 47.5% (NZ: 60%; Australia: 31.4%). Results: Responses suggested that participants generally viewed PCIT as both acceptable and effective. Australian participants reported seeing significantly more clients for PCIT per week than those in NZ (Medians 0 and 2, respectively; χ2(1) = 14.08, p < 0.001) and tended to view PCIT as more effective in treating disruptive and oppositional behaviour (95% CI: −0.70, −0.13, p = 0.005). Participants currently seeing PCIT clients described it as more enjoyable to implement than those not using PCIT (95% CI: −0.85, −0.10, p = 0.01). Thirty-eight percent of participants indicated that they adapt or tailor the standardised protocol, primarily by adding in content relating to emotion regulation, and removing content relating to time-out. Participants generally felt that they had fewer skills, less knowledge, and less confidence relating to the Parent-Directed Interaction phase of PCIT (which involves time-out), compared with the Child-Directed Interaction phase. Conclusion: While we had hypothesised that time-out represented an intra-intervention component that detracted from implementation success, results suggested that clinician concern over the use of time-out was present but not prominent. Rather, the lack of access to suitable equipment (i.e., one-way mirror and ear-piece) and difficulties associated with clients attending clinic-based sessions were barriers most commonly reported by clinicians. We suggest that future research might consider whether and how PCIT might be “re-implemented” by already-trained clinicians, moving beyond simply training more clinicians in the approach.

Predictors of Parent Engagement in Community-Based Parent–Child Interaction Therapy: A Brief Report

Despite substantial empirical support, correlates of retention and success in community-based parent–child interaction therapy (PCIT) implementation are not well defined. Widespread application of PCIT necessitates improved understanding of intervention components relating to family outcomes beyond highly controlled research trials. Using data collected as part of routine care, this study examined homework completion, time in intervention, and parent perceptions of pre-intervention behavioral issues as predictors of PCIT completion in a community-based sample. Subjects included 78 parents (49 women and 29 men) of 45 children (20 girls, 25 boys; mean age = 5.53 years) participating in PCIT in an outpatient behavioral health clinic in a small Midwestern U.S. city. Unlike previous controlled trials, homework completion did not predict child behavior growth or intervention completion. Reasons for early termination were examined thematically, and parent stress emerged as a possible avenue for future intervention in helping parents successfully complete PCIT. The issue of intervention dosage was also explored to see if families who prematurely terminated from PCIT still evidenced gains in child behavior.

Parent–Child Interaction Therapy for a 3-Year-Old Girl With Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: Restoration to Her Father’s Care Following a Period in Out-of-Home Care

Child abuse and neglect in very young children can lead to trauma-related stress symptoms that can be challenging to treat. Children exposed to multiple traumas occurring in the context of a caregiving relationship are sometimes more severely affected, evidenced by diverse negative behavioral, physical, social, and emotional consequences. Some of these children go on to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Parent–child interaction therapy (PCIT) is a dyadic play-based treatment for children with behavior problems and their parents or caregivers. There is limited research relating to the application of PCIT with very young children with PTSD with some studies actively excluding families where PTSD was present (Herschell et al., 2017). Additionally, there are no articles relating to treatment of a child restored to the care of a parent following out-of-home care (OOHC) and fewer still relating to a child restored to the care of her father. This case study illustrates the use of PCIT with a 3-year-old girl with PTSD, recently restored to her father’s care. It highlights how the use of PCIT in this case not only improved behavioral indicators of traumatic stress, but also afforded this child permanency and stability. The case study provides a summary of the progression of this intervention and the results obtained throughout treatment and 4 years post-intervention. The results indicated that PCIT, with trauma-informed tailoring, was an effective treatment in this case and contributed to safe and permanent care for this child.