(PDF) Parenting Intervention Programs Supporting Social-Emotional Development in Preschool Children: A Literature Review

Review Parenting Intervention Programs Supporting Social–Emotional Development in Preschool Children: A Literature Review Athina Vatou 1, Maria Evangelou-Tsitiridou 1, Eleni Tympa 1, Athanasios Gregoriadis 2 and Anastasia Vatou 1,* Department of Early Childhood Education and Care, International Hellenic University, 574 00 Thessaloniki, Greece;

(A.V.) 2 Department of Early Childhood Education, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece * Correspondence:

1 Abstract Social–emotional development in early childhood lays the groundwork for school readiness, healthy relationships, and long-term well-being. Parents play a pivotal role in this process, shaping children’s emotional awareness, regulation, and social competence through everyday interactions. This literature review synthesizes evidence from 74 peerreviewed studies to evaluate nine evidence-based parenting interventions targeting parents of preschool-aged children. The programs were analyzed with respect to their objectives, theoretical foundations, components, and the resulting outcomes for both parents and children. Across interventions, consistent benefits emerged in children, including improved emotion recognition, regulation, empathy, and prosocial behavior, as well as reductions in internalizing problems. Parents also gained in confidence and positive discipline practices. Key elements linked to effectiveness included active parent skill-building (such as modeling, role play, and guided practice), structured parent–child interactions, multi-component designs integrating home and school contexts, and flexible delivery formats that adapt to family needs. These findings underscore the critical role of parenting interventions as an evidence-based method to enhance preschoolers’ social–emotional development. Keywords: parenting intervention programs; social–emotional development; preschool children; parent–child interactions Academic Editors: Elena-Mădălina Vătămănescu and Sandro Serpa Received: 14 October 2025 Revised: 7 January 2026 Accepted: 8 January 2026 Published: 12 January 2026 Copyright: © 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 1. Introduction Social–emotional development (SED) is defined as the evolving capacity of individuals to understand, express, and regulate emotions, and to form positive interpersonal relationships [1]. In early childhood, this developmental domain lays a critical foundation for children’s overall well-being, school readiness, and long-term success [2,3]. Competence in social and emotional functioning is not only essential for building peer and adult relationships but is also intricately linked to cognitive processes, behavioral regulation, and academic performance. Research has consistently shown that children who develop the ability to identify and manage their emotions, empathize with others, and engage in socially appropriate expression are more likely to resolve conflicts constructively and sustain meaningful relationships [4]. Conversely, delays or difficulties in this area are associated with long-term https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 2 of 25 challenges, including behavior problems, academic underachievement, and mental health difficulties in adolescence and adulthood [5]. Emotional competence, a core component of SED, is central to children’s social adaptation and learning processes [6]. These skills do not operate in isolation; rather, they interact to promote social competence, which is defined as the capacity to achieve contextually appropriate goals in social interactions [7]. In the preschool years, social competence manifests primarily through successful peer and teacher interactions and participation in activities that support individual growth [8]. Given the foundational role of SED in early childhood, it is essential to understand how it can be supported and nurtured, particularly within the family context. Building on ecological and attachment perspectives, children’s social–emotional competence is shaped through interactions with multiple environmental systems, including family, school, and broader social contexts [9]. Among these, the family environment—and specifically the parental role—emerges as the most foundational influence, especially during early childhood. Parents serve not only as primary caregivers but also as emotional and behavioral role models, thereby laying the foundation for how children understand, express, and manage emotions [10]. Through daily interactions, they help children interpret emotional experiences and navigate the social world. Parental behaviors such as emotional expressiveness, attunement, and emotion-focused conversations significantly shape the development of emotional competence in young children [11,12]. Evidence consistently suggests that children whose parents model positive emotional expression and respond supportively to their emotional needs are more likely to exhibit emotional understanding, empathy, and regulation [13,14]. Moreover, when parents engage their children in conversations about emotions and collaboratively make sense of emotional experiences, they enhance children’s emotional literacy and social understanding [15,16]. In addition to emotional development, parents play a crucial role in the emergence of children’s social competence. Attachment theory posits that secure relationships with caregivers provide a safe base for children to explore social interactions, thereby supporting the development of socially appropriate behaviors [7,17]. Early interactions with responsive caregivers equip children with the skills to engage with others, interpret social cues, and build trusting relationships [18]. The quality of parental care is also a key determinant of developmental outcomes. Warm, sensitive, and age-appropriate parenting is consistently linked to stronger SED, while low-quality or inconsistent caregiving can hinder children’s ability to form healthy emotional and social connections [19,20]. Thus, parents are not only facilitators of early social–emotional learning but also critical agents of long-term emotional well-being and interpersonal success. Given the foundational role of parents in shaping children’s emotional awareness, regulation, and interpersonal skills, it is essential to understand how structured parenting interventions can be leveraged to support children’s SED during the preschool years. Over the past decades, a variety of parenting programs have been developed internationally, many of which are grounded in developmental and attachment theories and emphasize skill-building through experiential learning, modeling, and parent–child interaction. These programs aim not only to improve parenting practices but also to promote positive child outcomes across emotional and social domains. However, despite their widespread application and demonstrated efficacy in many countries, there remains limited synthesis of the specific program components that contribute most effectively to early social–emotional development. This literature review synthesizes evidence on parenting programs designed to promote the social–emotional development (SED) of preschool-aged children. Its primary https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 3 of 25 aim is to identify the core components and mechanisms that most effectively enhance parenting practices and, in turn, support positive child outcomes. To achieve this, the review addresses the following research question: “Which evidence-based parenting interventions are effective in promoting the SED of preschool-aged children, and what are the key program components that account for their effectiveness?”. 2. Methodology 2.1. Search Procedure To identify relevant studies, a search was conducted across four major databases: Google Scholar, PsycINFO, ScienceDirect, and ERIC. These databases were selected to ensure comprehensive coverage of peer-reviewed literature within the fields of education, psychology and early childhood intervention. PsycINFO and ERIC were included due to their strong focus on psychological and educational research, while ScienceDirect provided access to applied intervention studies. Google Scholar was used to complement these databases by capturing interdisciplinary research published across a wide range of journals. The search strategy employed combinations of keywords related to parenting, intervention, target population, and developmental outcomes. Core search terms included “parenting intervention”, “parent training program”, “parental support”, “early childhood”, “preschool children”, and “social–emotional development”. Additional terms such as “emotional competence”, “social competence”, “parent–child interaction”, and “family-based intervention” were also used to broaden the scope and capture variations in terminology. Searches were performed using Boolean operators (e.g.,, AND, OR) to create combinations of these keywords. This approach created precise search strings (for example: “parenting intervention” AND “preschool children” AND “social-emotional development”) ensuring that the results reflected studies integrating these core concepts, rather than those mentioning each term individually. Relevant studies could also be identified during the review process. The present analysis was conducted as a literature review synthesizing evidence from peer-reviewed studies on parenting intervention programs. 2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Studies were included if they focused on children aged 0–6 years, as this developmental period represents a critical window for shaping social and emotional competencies through parenting practices [2,8,10]. Eligible interventions targeted parents alone or parents and children together and were designed as structured, multi-session programs consisting of at least five sessions. This threshold was selected to ensure that the included interventions provide sufficient opportunities for ongoing parental engagement, skill acquisition, and guided practice across time. The specific inclusion and exclusion criteria applied in the review are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Inclusion Criteria Studies involving children aged 0–6 years 1. Interventions targeting parents and children or parents 2. only Parenting intervention 3. Programs consisting of at least 5 sessions 4. Publications available in English 5. Exclusion Criteria Studies focusing on primary school-aged children or adolescents Interventions targeting children only without parental involvement School intervention Less than 5 sessions during the intervention Publications in other language https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 4 of 25 6. Peer-reviewed journal articles 6. 7. Studies published from 2010 7. Dissertations, PhD thesis, conference abstracts, or non-peer-reviewed sources Studies published before 2010 2.3. Selection Process The initial database search yielded a total of 106 studies. After duplicates were removed and titles and abstracts were screened, 32 studies were excluded because they did not meet the predefined inclusion criteria (see Table 1). The most common reasons for exclusion included: (a) studies targeting older children or adolescents, (b) interventions focusing exclusively on children without parental involvement, (c) programs with fewer than five sessions, or (d) publications that were not peer-reviewed. Following this screening, a total of 74 studies met all criteria and were included in the final review. These 74 eligible studies reported on the outcomes of nine distinct parenting intervention programs, which form the basis of this review’s analysis. 2.4. Program Categorization To structure the analysis, the nine intervention programs were categorized using a dual framework. First, they were classified by their geographical origin (i.e., United States, Europe, or Australia). Second, programs were classified by their mode of delivery: either group-based interventions, where parents participate collectively, or individual-based interventions, featuring one-to-one guidance with facilitators (see Table 2). This categorization scheme allows for both cross-cultural comparisons and an examination of how different delivery formats may influence parental engagement and program outcomes. Table 2. Programs categorized. Delivery Group-based program Individualbased program Origin USA The Program Subscription Parents as Teacher [21] Group/hybrid program Kids in Transition to School Group program USA [22] USA Circle of Security [23] Group program Europe The Incredible Years [24] Parenting group program Social–Emotional Prevention Prevention program in Europe Program [25] groups Australia Tuning in to Kids Program [26] Group program Parent–Child Interaction Ther- Individual parent–child USA apy [27] therapy Multi-level program with a Positive Parenting Program primarily individual characAustralia [28] ter Individual parental guidance Australia 1-2-3 Magic Program [29,30] program 3. Results This section presents the findings of the literature review, focusing on a comprehensive analysis of the selected parenting intervention programs. Each program is examined across several dimensions: its objectives, target population, theoretical framework, core components, delivery methods, duration, and assessment tools, along with documented outcomes for both parents and children (see Table 3). Particular attention is given to effects on children’s social–emotional development and on parental skills, knowledge, and confidence. Where available, effect sizes (Cohen’s d) are reported to provide a more robust understanding of program effectiveness (see Table 4). According to Cohen’s (1988) [31] https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 5 of 25 widely accepted benchmarks, d values around 0.20 indicate a small effect, 0.50 a medium effect, and 0.80 or higher a large effect. This structured analysis allows for cross-program comparisons and the identification of elements most strongly associated with positive developmental outcomes. This review identified and analyzed nine evidence-based parenting intervention programs. These include Parents as Teachers (PAT) [21], Kids in Transition to School [22], Circle of Security [23], The Incredible Years (IY) [24], The Social–Emotional Prevention Program [25], Tuning in to Kids (TIK) [26], Parent–Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) [27], The Triple P—Positive Parenting Program [28], and the 1-2-3 Magic Program [29,30]. 3.1. Parents as Teachers The Parents as Teachers (PAT) program is a comprehensive early childhood intervention founded on the principle that parents are their children’s first and most influential teachers. It is a parent education model that begins during pregnancy or shortly after birth and continues until the child reaches five years of age [32,33]. PAT demonstrated positive results and was subsequently adopted as a national model in 1984 [21]. Today, it is implemented in 49 U.S. states and in several countries worldwide [34]. The program’s goals have expanded over time to include: (a) enhancing parental knowledge of early childhood development and improving caregiving practices, (b) providing developmental screenings for the early detection of delays, (c) promoting child and family health and well-being, (d) preventing child abuse and neglect, (e) strengthening school readiness and success, (f) supporting overall family functioning, and (g) fostering family-community connections [35]. Evidence demonstrates that PAT yields multi-level benefits for both parents and children. The findings can be categorized as short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes. In the short-term findings, randomized trials report improvements in children’s communication and play skills, with small to moderate effect sizes for language, listening, and family environment quality [33,36]. Children in the program also display gains in expressive language and cognitive abilities compared to controls, while parents demonstrate more effective caregiving practices and stronger home learning environments [37]. Intermediate results suggest that participation enhances school readiness, reduces behavior problems, and improves socio-emotional skills such as emotional regulation and interpersonal competence [38]. Importantly, parents report higher confidence, improved parenting practices, and stronger support networks, particularly among families facing greater psychosocial risks [32,33]. In the long term, PAT has been linked to sustained academic benefits, such as improved literacy and numeracy, and to reduced risks of child maltreatment and neglect [39,40]. Some studies indicate that children from low-income families who participate in PAT narrow the developmental gap with their more advantaged peers, though challenges related to poverty cannot be entirely eliminated [40]. Overall, the evidence suggests that PAT contributes to gradual but meaningful improvements in child development and parenting practices, supporting both family well-being and children’s socio-emotional growth. However, many studies rely on pre-post designs without comparison groups and high attrition alongside limited demographic information reduces internal validity [32]. Samples are often geographically or demographically narrow [33,37] and some studies use small samples that increase the risk of small-sample bias [33,38]. Measurement challenges persist due to reliance on multiple instruments and the difficulty of capturing multilevel home visitation processes [36]. Additionally, variability in implementation across sites may affect fidelity [36], while the absence of dosage data constrains interpretation of program intensity [32]. Few studies examine mechanisms of change [33] and some datasets lack sufficient follow-up to assess long-term outcomes [34]. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 6 of 25 3.2. Kids in Transition to School The Kids in Transition to School (KITS) parenting program is an evidence-based intervention designed to support children and their caregivers during the transition into kindergarten [22]. Developed to promote school readiness among young children, the program emphasizes strengthening early academic abilities, social–emotional skills and self-regulation capacities. By engaging caregivers as active parents in this process, KITS aims to create a supportive home environment that facilitates a confident and successful entry into formal school [22]. The KITS includes a structured set of components that target both caregiver practices and child outcomes. Core elements include parent training sessions that introduce strategies for positive behavior management, approaches to fostering early literacy and numeracy and methods supporting children’s emotional regulation and social competence [41]. In addition, the program incorporates guided home activities, modeling and practice opportunities for parents and caregivers and recommendations for establishing consistent routines, all of which work together to reinforce children’s readiness for school transition [41,42]. Across multiple randomized trials, the KITS program has demonstrated consistent positive effects on children’s early school readiness. Studies report significant improvements in self-regulation skills immediately after the intervention [41] and sustained gains in self-regulation across kindergarten [43,44]. The program also strengthens early literacy [41] and enhances social competence during the transition period [22], while leading to lower oppositional and aggressive behaviors in kindergarten [45] and without internalizing and externalizing symptoms [46]. Importantly, KITS also showed meaningful improvements in parenting, including reductions in ineffective or inconsistent discipline before school entry and increases in parental involvement in school, with evidence that improved parenting indirectly enhances school readiness [43,44]. Although KITS shows strong effects, several limitations should be acknowledged. Most studies were conducted solely with children in foster care, limiting generalizability [41,45]. Sample sizes were moderate, reducing power for detecting smaller effects [41]. Many outcomes relied on teacher or caregiver reports, introducing potential rater bias [41]. Finally, most assessments occurred immediately post-intervention, offering limited evidence of long-term trajectories [41]. 3.3. Circle of Security Program The Circle of Security (COS) is an attachment-based intervention grounded in more than fifty years of research on caregiver-child relationships [23,47]. The program emphasizes parental sensitivity, emotional availability and reflective functioning as mechanisms that support secure attachment. To make the model more accessible for community use, the developers created the Circle for Security-Parenting (COS-P) program, a condensed, video-based version designed to help parents recognize, interpret and respond to their children’s emotional needs within everyday interactions [47]. The COS-P intervention is designed to enhance children’s attachment security by strengthening caregivers’ relational and emotional capacities [47]. A central element of the program is the guided use of video material, which allows parents to reflect on real interactions and consider both their child’s signals and their own responses within the relationship. By engaging caregivers in this structured reflection, the intervention seeks to promote more attuned caregiving practices and to reshape caregivers’ internal representations of their child’s needs and of the caregiving role. The program also places strong emphasis on developing caregivers’ reflective functioning, encouraging them to think about the thoughts, feelings, and intentions underlying behavior (for their child’s and their own) which supports more sensitive and responsive parenting [47,48]. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 7 of 25 Across published evaluations the Circle of Security (COS) and Circle of Security-Parenting (COS-P) programs show promising but mixed outcomes. COS-P has been found to reduce mothers’ unsupportive responses to child distress and improved children’s inhibitory control, with exploratory analyses indicating attachment benefits mainly for mothers with specific attachment or depressive profiles [49]. The 20-week COS intervention demonstrated clinically significant declines in parenting stress and psychological symptoms, alongside improvements in child behavior and parents’ representations of their child [48]. Further evidence shows increases in parental mentalizing, parental self-efficacy and reductions in caregiving helplessness, hostility and depression symptoms following COS-P compared to controls [50,51]. Studies in clinical infant mental health settings also report improved parent internal representations and more emotionally available parent– infant interactions after COS-P [52]. Together, these findings suggest that COS-based programs can enhance relational functioning, parental emotional capacities and aspects of child behavior, though effects on attachment classification remain inconsistent and population-dependent. 3.4. The Incredible Years The Incredible Years (IY) program, developed by Carolyne Webster-Stratton [24], is a widely recognized, evidence-based intervention designed to promote children’s social and emotional competence. While parent program goals are tailored to the child’s age and developmental stage, they share a common aim: to strengthen parenting practices and parent–child relationships, create supportive family environments, encourage positive discipline while reducing harsh practices, improve parental self-regulation (e.g., anger, stress, conflict management), and enhance family support networks [53]. The IY parent program is structured according to children’s developmental stages, with each component aiming to strengthen parenting skills and promote positive child outcomes [54]. The core curriculum is segmented into three distinct programs: the Baby Program (0–12 months), the Toddler Program (1–3 years), and the Preschool Program (3– 6 years). Beyond the BASIC curricula, the ADVANCED program provides additional support for families facing multiple risk factors, with a focus on parental self-regulation, family communication, and stress-related problem-solving [55]. IY interventions employ interactive, experiential methods, including video modeling of real-life parent–child interactions, guided discussions, role play, collaborative activities such as “Buddy Buzz,” and structured home practice [56]. These are supported by parent manuals, activity books, and visual materials designed to reinforce learning. A critical determinant of program effectiveness is the role of the group leader, who facilitates sessions, models positive practices, and fosters a supportive group climate [55]. Extensive research, including numerous randomized controlled trials, has demonstrated the effectiveness of the IY parent program in improving child behavior and parenting practices. Evidence from community and clinical settings consistently shows reductions in externalizing problems such as conduct issues, hyperactivity, and inattention, as well as gains in prosocial behavior and social competence [57,58]. The program has shown beneficial results for children at risk or diagnosed with ADHD, showing improvements in attention, self-regulation, and aggression [59,60]. Cross-national studies confirm its generalizability beyond Anglo-American contexts, with positive outcomes reported in Sweden [61], Portugal [59], Finland [62], Spain [63], Jamaica [64], and China [65]. Importantly, IY has shown strong effects in high-risk populations, including foster families [66,67] and parents with a history of child maltreatment, where it promoted positive parenting and reduced risk factors for abuse [68–70]. Long-term follow-up studies further indicate that improvements in parenting and child behavior can be sustained for several years post-intervention [54,71]. Meta-analyses also suggest that the program is https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 8 of 25 particularly effective for younger children and that parental depression may enhance its benefits [72–74]. Overall, the IY program has established a solid evidence base supporting its use as both a preventive and targeted intervention across diverse populations and cultural contexts [75]. Despite strong evidence for its effectiveness, many evaluations were constrained by small or non-representative samples and baseline group differences, which limit generalizability [57,59,62,65,67]. Attendance rates were often lower than in earlier trials and independent fidelity checks were frequently absent, raising concerns about implementation consistency [57,58]. Several studies relied heavily on non-blinded parent-report measures, showed notable attrition, or used short follow-up periods [58,62,63,65]. Additionally, sample selection bias, heterogeneous risk levels, and use of quasi-experimental rather than randomized designs further constrain causal interpretation [57,59,67,70]. 3.5. Social–Emotional Prevention Program The Social–Emotional Prevention Program (SEP) is a multi-tiered intervention developed in Romania by Ștefan and colleagues [25], aimed at strengthening preschoolers’ social–emotional skills and reducing externalizing behaviors. It targets emotion recognition, regulation, empathy, problem-solving, and prosocial behavior, while engaging both teachers and parents to ensure consistent reinforcement of skills across school and home contexts [76]. The program integrates three core components: a classroom curriculum of 37 activities over 15 weeks, focusing on emotional awareness, self-control, problem-solving, and prosocial skills; teacher training, consisting of 12 h of workshops and ongoing support to improve classroom management and parent collaboration [77]; and parent sessions, including group meetings and optional consultations on emotion coaching and positive parenting strategies [78]. The effectiveness of SEP has been demonstrated across children with varying levels of risk. For those identified as socially or emotionally vulnerable, the program has been shown to improve emotional recognition, enhance regulation skills, and reduce both externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression, noncompliance) and internalizing difficulties (e.g., sadness, withdrawal) [25,78]. These improvements were evident both immediately after the intervention and in follow-up assessments, underscoring the sustained impact of the program. Children also demonstrated stronger problem-solving abilities, greater use of adaptive strategies, and increased prosocial behavior in conflict situations [76]. In addition, teachers reported fewer behavioral problems in classrooms, while parents noted improved social behavior and emotional regulation at home, alongside more consistent and positive parenting practices [78]. Demonstrating its utility as a universal prevention tool, even children considered at low or no risk benefited from the program, showing enhanced emotional skills and improved prosocial interactions [77]. The SEP has several limitations, including uncertainty about which specific components produced the observed effects [78]. Findings relied mainly on parent-report measures without observational data limiting generalizability to higher-risk families [78]. 3.6. Tuning in to Kids Tuning in to Kids (TIK) is an evidence-based parenting program designed to promote children’s social and emotional development by strengthening parents’ use of “emotion coaching” [24]. The program’s central focus is on enhancing parents’ ability to recognize, validate, and guide their children’s emotional experiences, thereby improving emotional communication within the family. Originally developed as a universal prevention program for parents of children aged 3–12, this review focuses on its application and efficacy within the preschool years [79]. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 9 of 25 Research consistently demonstrates positive outcomes for both children and parents. For children, participation in TIK is associated with improved emotional awareness, empathy, and regulation. It has also been shown to reduce both internalizing symptoms (e.g., anxiety, withdrawal) and externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression, defiance) [80]. For parents, studies show significant improvements in emotion coaching skills, including greater emotional awareness, increased use of emotion labels, more frequent emotionfocused conversations, and a reduction in emotionally dismissive parenting practices [80,81]. These changes contribute to stronger, more emotionally connected parent–child relationships. A key strength of TIK is its adaptability. The program has been successfully modified for diverse populations, including families experiencing trauma [82], fathers (Dads TIK) [83], adolescents [84], and toddlers [85]. TIK-Together is a joint parent–child version of the program that brings parents and preschoolers together in shared emotion coaching activities, promotin co-regulation and positive emotional communication [86]. These adaptations, such as Dads TIK and TIK-Together, have shown particular success in improving fathers’ emotion coaching and co-parenting practices [83,86]. To enhance accessibility, TIK has also been developed into a digital format (TIK-OL), which allows parents to engage with the material remotely and at their own pace, further broadening the program’s reach and potential impact. However, many studies lacked randomized control groups, relied exclusively on parent-report questionnaires and did not include observational measures, raising concerns about expectancy bias and measurement validity [82,83,86]. Sample sizes were often small with notable attrition, short follow-up periods and limited information on families who declined participation [82,83]. Generalizability was constrained by recruitment challenges and the effects of group-based participation were not controlled for [83,86]. 3.7. Parent–Child Interaction Therapy Parent–Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) is a structured, short-term intervention designed to strengthen parent–child relationships and reduce behavioral problems in children aged 2 to 7 [27,87,88]. Its primary goals are to enhance preschoolers’ self-esteem, decrease externalizing behaviors, increase parents’ sense of efficacy, and promote positive parent–child interactions [27]. Grounded in attachment and social learning theories, PCIT provides a highly structured, evidence-based process that begins with a comprehensive assessment, including clinical interviews and direct observation using the Dyadic Parent–Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS-IV) [89]. The intervention then unfolds in two sequential phases. The first, Child-Directed Interaction (CDI), focuses on relationship enhancement through skills like praise, reflection, and imitation during play. The second, Parent-Directed Interaction (PDI), teaches parents effective, non-coercive discipline and limit-setting techniques [90]. Extensive research has demonstrated PCIT’s effectiveness across diverse populations. For families with histories of child maltreatment, participation is linked to reductions in parental stress, improvements in parenting practices, and warmer interactions, while also lowering the risk of re-reports of abuse [91]. Foster families participating in PCIT report significant decreases in children’s internalizing and externalizing symptoms [92]. Comparative studies suggest that PCIT achieves outcomes comparable or superior to treatment-as-usual, with both standard and intensive shortterm formats proving effective and time-efficient [93–96]. Notably, teachers’ assessments have sometimes diverged from parents’, suggesting that program benefits may be most pronounced in the home context where parent–child interactions are directly targeted https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 10 of 25 [76]. The successful application of PCIT in different cultural contexts, such as with Chinese families, further highlights its adaptability and effectiveness in addressing behavioral and relational challenges [97]. PCIT studies share several limitations, including small samples, notable attrition, short follow-up periods and frequent reliance on parent-report measures rather than observational assessments, which raises concerns about bias and internal validity [91–95]. Many evaluations also lacked control groups or were underpowered, limiting confidence in findings Generalizability is constrained by selective recruitment (e.g., high-risk families, foster parents, homogeneous community samples) and voluntary participation, which may introduce self-selection bias [91–95]. 3.8. Positive Parenting Program The Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) is a comprehensive, multi-level system of parenting support designed to promote positive parent–child relationships and reduce behavioral difficulties in children from birth to age 16. Its core objectives include strengthening parenting skills, fostering children’s self-regulation, and improving overall family functioning [26,98]. A key feature of Triple P is its tiered system, which offers five levels of intervention, ranging from universal, low-intensity strategies (e.g., information campaigns) to intensive, targeted support for families facing complex challenges [99,100]. This flexible structure operates on the principle of “minimum sufficient intervention,” allowing parents to engage with the level of support that best matches their specific needs, preferences, and the severity of their child’s difficulties. A robust body of evidence demonstrates its effectiveness across diverse contexts. Participation has been linked to significant reductions in children’s externalizing and emotional difficulties, alongside improvements in parental confidence and the use of positive discipline practices [101,102]. Importantly, both short-term and long-term followup studies indicate sustained benefits, including enhanced school readiness and better family adjustment [101,103]. The program has also shown positive outcomes for specialized populations, including parents of children with disabilities, foster families, and those at risk of child maltreatment, by reducing reports of abuse and improving caregiver well-being [104,105]. Studies in contexts such as Sweden and the U.S. further highlight Triple P’s scalability, cultural adaptability, and long-term sustainability [106,107]. In addition to these child-focused outcomes, Triple P contributes to improved parental mental health, reduced stress, and stronger family relationships, enhancing communication, emotional responsiveness, and problem-solving skills [108,109]. Triple-P evaluations consistently note methodological and contextual limitations, including small samples, non-randomized or pre-post designs and reliance almost exclusively on parent-report measures, which introduce bias and limit internal validity [101,102,105,108,109]. Many studies reported attrition, short follow-up periods and of blinded assessors or multi-informant data, reducing confidence in the durability and objectivity of outcomes [101,102,105,109]. Generalizability is also limited by factors such as self-selected samples, insufficient reporting of participant characteristics, and the use of naturalistic, non-randomized designs where uncontrolled environmental influences may affect outcomes [101,102]. 3.9. 1‐2‐3 Magic Program The 1-2-3 Magic program is a widely implemented behavior-management intervention designed to help parents and caregivers guide both challenging and desirable behaviors in children aged 2–12 [29,30]. Its primary aims are to prevent https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 11 of 25 behavioral problems, encourage prosocial behavior, and strengthen parent–child relationships [110]. The program is structured around three core components, each addressing a key parenting domain. The first, “Stop Behaviors,” targets the reduction in disruptive behaviors such as tantrums, defiance, and yelling. The second, “Start Behaviors,” promotes the development of positive routines, including reading, school preparation, and helping at home. The third component focuses on enhancing the parent–child relationship by fostering a positive and supportive family climate [110]. Evidence supports the program’s effectiveness in both standard and brief formats. Parents who completed the program reported significant reductions in children’s disruptive behaviors, improvements in parenting practices, and decreases in parental stress and depression [111,112]. A brief, video-based version produced similar benefits that were maintained at a six-month follow-up [113]. Overall, this program emerges as a practical, cost-effective intervention that improves parenting confidence and family functioning while helping parents manage children’s behavior. Studies of the 1-2-3 Magic program are limited by small, self-selected community samples that were predominantly highly educated, higher-income, and two-parent families, restricting generalizability to more diverse or clinically referred populations [111–113]. Most evaluations relied exclusively on parent-report measures, without teacher or observational data, raising concerns about reporter bias and the absence of multiinformant validation [111,112]. Several studies also lacked comparison groups or used wait-list controls, limiting causal inference and the ability to rule out expectancy or halo effects [111,112]. Attrition, short follow-up periods, and the inability to account for facilitator differences further constrain interpretation of findings [113]. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 12 of 25 Table 3. Intervention Programs. Program Theoretical Components Framework Group meetings Bioecological Model [114] Improvement in parenting Principles of developmental par- Home visits by professionals practices (activities, modeling, shared enting [37] Early detection of delays book reading) Child and family well-be- Early intervention and prevention Developmental screening of models [115] ing Family Systems Theory [116] Maltreatment Prevention children School readiness Resource network Community connection Aims Duration/Frequency Once a week, 1 h Assessment Tools Outcomes For children: Pre-post test Short-term: Cognitive skills, social–emoIndicative: tional skills, school readiness Vineland-II [117] Intermediate: Overall effectiveness HFPI [118] Long-term: Overall child well-being PAPF [119] For parents: Child Behavior Check Short-term: Positive parenting practices, List [120] parental self-efficacy Other scales Intermediate: Reduction in child maltreatment Long-term: Not specified Indicative: 24 sessions for school readi- School readiness Developmental timing [121] For children: KITS Increase early literacy ness children phase: 2 h twice Concepts About Print Improved early literacy skills skills, social skills and self- Children’s self-regulation [122] Test [124] Teaching and practice social Learning opportunities weekly, 16 sesEnhance self-regulation skills regulation skills skills, early literacy and self[123] sions. Social competence Increase caregiver involveCBCL Social Comperegulation skills Transition/ mainteLower oppositional and aggressive bement in early literacy activtence 8 sessions for caregiver group nance phase: 2 h Child Behavior Checkhaviors ities and in schooling For parents: list [120] Caregivers group curriculum once weekly, Caregiver group: 2 h, Emotion Regulation Reduce ineffective or inconsistent disci(establishing routines, supevery 2 weeks pline practices Checklist [125] porting children’s skills, preIncreased parental involvement in paring children, behavior manParent and Teacher Inschool volvement Scale [126] agement strategies for transiIndirect improvements in parenting tion-related challenges) linked to child skill gains Attachment Theory [127] Groups, individual, couple’s or 8–10 weekly sesFor children: Indicative: Circle of Secu- Enhance children’s attachhome visit setting Improvements in children behavior sions, 1.5 h Parent interviews rity (Parents) ment security Video-based learning modules problems Parenting Stress Index Encourage caregiver reflecCircle of Security graphic Parent–infant interactions [128] tion Reflective discussions For parents: Eyberg Child Behavior Promote more attuned and Focus on child emotion Reducing parental depression, stress. Inventory [129] sensitive practices Support for improving parenPsychological symptoms Depression Anxiety Shift caregivers’ internal Increased parental empathy and self-efStress Scales [130] representations tal sensitivity Strengthen caregivers’ reStrengthening reflective funcficacy flective functioning tioning PAT https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 IY SEP TIK PCIT 13 of 25 Support the development Balanced parental internal representaof more responsive parenttions ing Improved child inhibitory control For children: Group sessions (8–12 families 14–20 weeks, 2–2.5 Pre- and post-tests Social Learning Theory [131] Strengthening parental Reduction in behavior problems, inper group) h per session Randomized concaregiving and supporting Parental Self-Efficacy Theory [132] Collaborative approach trolled trials (RCTs) creased prosocial behavior, enhanced sopositive relationships Cognitive/Developmental Theories Use of video modeling and [133] Clinical trials Safe and supportive envicial competence, and improved emorole play Self-report measures Attachment Theory [127] ronment tional skills. and observational For parents: Reduced stress and depresPositive discipline strate- Cognitive-Behavioral Approaches Home-based activities methods [134] gies sion, increased well-being, adoption of Parent handbook Indicative: Improving parental skills positive parenting practices, improved Guidance by trained facilitaEyberg Child Behav- parent–child interactions, reduced risk tors (leaders) iour Inventory [129] of child maltreatment, and greater use of Pyramid Model of Parenting Strengths and Difficulpraise. Behavior ties Questionnaire [135] 15 weekly child acFor children: Improved social–emotional Pyramid Model [136] Classroom curriculum Support early developPre–post test tivities skills ment of social–emotional Theories of emotion regulation Indicative: Teacher training Reduced externalizing behavior 12 h of teacher skills and parental emotion socialization Parent involvement Affective Knowledge training For parents: Not reported [137] 37 classroom activities for all Prevent behavior problems Test [138] Parent group ses- Social Problem-Solving children (2–3 per week) sions (2 h) or indiTest [139] vidual meetings upon request 6 weekly sessions, Indicative: Difficulties Parent group sessions For children: Strengthen parents’ skills Emotion coaching theory [140] 2 h each Role-playing Emotion socialization [12] Enhanced social–emotional skills in emotion coaching in Emotion Regulation Audiovisual material Attachment theory [127] Reduction in behavior problems Improve parenting pracScale [142] Experiential exercises Elements of mindfulness and emoSustained effects tices Eyberg Child BehavReflective activities tion regulation [141] For parents: Promote children’s emoiour Inventory [129] Increased parental empathy tional and social compeStrengths and DifficulReduced emotional dismissiveness tence ties Questionnaire [135] Weekly 1 h ses- Observation, questionTwo-phase intervention: Parenting model [143] Improve parent–child relaFor children: sions naires, session record- Reduction in externalizing and internalChild-Directed Interaction and Hanf model [144] tionship quality ings Parent-Directed Interaction Play therapy [145] Address emotional and beizing symptoms Indicative: Assessment of difficulties Attachment theory [127] Improved emotion and behavior regulahavioral difficulties Eyberg Child Behavior Direct parent coaching via onetion way mirror For parents: Inventory [129] https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 14 of 25 Child Behavior CheckReduced parenting stress list [105] More positive parent–child interactions Lower risk of child maltreatment Improved parenting practices Flexible Eyberg Child Behavior For children: Improvements in SED Structured, multi-level system Social Learning Theory [146] Triple-P Positive parents-child relaInventory [129] Reductions in externalizing and internalPrinciples of Positive Parenting delivered in self-directed, inditionship Strengths and Difficulvidual, group, or online forizing problems [29] Strengthening of parenting mats skills and knowledge Cognitive–Behavioral Theory [147] ties Questionnaire For parents: Enhanced parenting competencies Reduction in parental [135] Improved overall family functioning stress Beck Depression InEffective management of parental stress Prevention of behavioral ventory [148] problems Depression Anxiety Stress Scales [149] Parental Anger Inventory [150] Behavioral psychology [150] “Stop” and “Start” techniques, Self-directed for- Eyberg Child BehavFor children: 1-2-3 Magic Prevention of behavior three phases: behavior man- mat with flexible iour Inventory [129] Social learning theory [151] Reduced frequency and intensity of Program problems problem behaviors Promotion of prosocial be- Cognitive–behavioral theory [147] agement, relationship build- implementation Parenting Stress Ining, emotion regulation For parents: havior dex—Short Form [128] Reduced parental distress Improvement of parent– Depression Anxiety Increased self-efficacy child relationship quality Stress Scales [149] Tool to Measure Parenting Self-Efficacy [152] https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 15 of 25 Table 4. Effect sizes of program. Program PAT TIKS COS COS-P COS-P IY SEP TiK PCIT Triple-P Effect Size Sample Context/Setting Reference Study Design (d) 1 (n) Communication skill 0.28 RCT 767 Community-Based [36] Parenting effective0.20 RCT 664 Community-Based [33] ness Social–emotional 0.93 Encouragement trial 268 Family Center [38] skills Early literacy 0.26 RCT 192 Foster care [45] Self-Regulation 0.18 Oppositional and Ag0.33 RCT 192 Foster care [41] gressive behavior Parenting Stress 0.53 Pre-post sequential co83 Community In[48] hort fant/Early Child MenPsychological symp0.62 tal Health toms Parental responses to 0.30–0.35 RCT 141 Head Start Centers [49] distress Child inhibitory con0.50 trol Child attachment 0.03–0.01 pre-post sequential co256 4 community child and [51] Response to child dis- −0.03–0.37 hort/waitlist control family organizations tress group Child functioning −0.29–0.40 Prosocial behavior/so- 0.070–0.75 RCT 149 Community-Based [57] cial competence Peer relationships 0.50 RCT 161 Community settings [58] Social–emotional 0.64–0.77 RCT 149 Disadvantaged settings [67] skills Positive parenting 0.44 Site RCT 481 Head Start centers [68] Behavior 0.35–0.36 ORCHIDS RCT 387 Prevention setting [54] Regulation of emo- 0.29–0.63 Quasi-experimental 204 Community-based [78] tion/Behavior Cluster RCT 216 Community-based [79] Empathy/Emotional 0.64–1.08 connection/Emotion coaching Emotion coach0.30–0.74 RCT 128 Community Preschools [80] ing/child behavior Emotion coaching 0.69–1.25 RCT 162 Community-based [83] Parenting practices 2.18 RCT 150 Clinical [91] Internalizing prob- 0.10–0.18 RCT 102 Child welfare agency [92] lems Externalizing prob0.21 [92] lems [96] Behavior (children) 0.64–0.93 Quasi-experimental 30 families Community mental health agencies Behavioral problems 0.78–1.40 RCT 111 Social work settings [97] Parenting behavior 0.61 Quasi-experimental 384 Community-based [101] Child behavior 0.47 [101] Child behavior prob0.81 Quasi-experimental 130 High-risk families [105] lems Outcome https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 16 of 25 Child behavior inten- 0.42–0.56 sity Parent satisfaction 0.44–0.53 1-2-3 Child behavior inten0.74 Magic prosity gram Child behavior prob0.75 lems [105] RCT 84 Home and public settings [105] [111] [111] Note. 1 Cohen’s d effect size. Several programs (e.g., Triple-P, TiK, 1-2-3 Magic Program) include multiple delivery modalities of varying intensity. Reported effect sizes reflect the specific versions evaluated in the included studies and should not be generalized across all variants of a program. 4. Discussion This review examined how evidence-based parenting interventions promote the social–emotional development of preschool-aged children and identified program components most strongly associated with effective outcomes. Across the nine programs reviewed, consistent patterns emerged despite differences in theoretical orientation, delivery format, and target populations. Importantly, however, the magnitude of program effects varied substantially depending on methodological and contextual factors. Studies with smaller samples tended to report larger effect sizes, whereas large-scale community or populations-level evaluations generally produced more modest stable estimates. Differences in study design (e.g., randomized trials, quasi-experimental evaluations) and characteristics of participating families also contribute to variability in outcomes. By presenting information on sample size, study design and type of population this review underscores that effect sizes are not directly comparable across programs and should be interpreted within the methodological context in which they were generated. 4.1. Support for Children’s Social–Emotional Development All programs demonstrated measurable benefits for children’s social–emotional competencies. Improvements were observed in emotion recognition and regulation (PAT, SEP, TIK), empathy and prosocial behavior (SEP, IY, Triple P), and reductions in both internalizing and externalizing problems (PCIT, Triple P, 1-2-3 Magic). These findings strongly align with ecological systems theory [114], which posits that parent–child interactions function as proximal processes—the primary engines of development. They also reinforce developmental models [2] that emphasize the foundational role of the family in shaping children’s social–emotional trajectories. 4.2. Common Components Linked to Effectiveness Several structural and procedural elements emerged as key drivers of program effectiveness. Across interventions, active parent skill-building—including modeling, role play, and guided practice—was consistently linked to stronger outcomes by helping caregivers acquire concrete strategies for emotion coaching and positive discipline. Programs that incorporate direct parent–child interaction and in-session coaching, such as PCIT, IY, and PAT, showed particularly robust improvements in child behavior and relationship quality, underscoring the value of live coaching and immediate feedback. Moreover, multi-component designs (e.g., IY, SEP) achieved broader effects by combining classroom curricula, teacher training, and parent education, thereby providing coordinated, multisystemic support across home and school contexts. Finally, flexible intensity and delivery formats (e.g., Triple P’s tiered model, 1-2-3 Magic’s brief video-based version) demonstrated that even lower-intensity interventions can produce meaningful benefits when https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 17 of 25 tailored to family needs—an important consideration for scalable community implementation. It is important to note that many interventions reviewed, such as Triple-P, TiK, 12-3 Magic, exist in multiple delivery formats (e.g., brief, self-directed, online, or intensive in-person versions), that vary substantially in dosage and expected impact. As a result, the effect sizes reported in this review correspond only to the specific program variants evaluated in the included studies. 4.3. Implementation Challenges and Limitations of the Evidence Base Although these interventions demonstrate promising benefits, their implementation in real-world settings is accompanied by several challenges. Many programs require substantial resources, such as intensive parent-coaching sessions, specialized facilitator training and ongoing fidelity monitoring, which can limit scalability and accessibility, particularly in low-resource communities. Engagement barriers are also common, with families experiencing socioeconomic adversity linguistic barriers, or limited availability often underrepresented in trials. Moreover, program effects frequently depend on high fidelity, yet delivery across community agencies is variable and may dilute outcomes. At the research level, much of the evidence relies on small samples, parent-report measures, short follow-up periods, or non-randomized designs, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions about long-term effectiveness and generalizability. Together, these factors highlight the importance of pairing evidence-based models with feasible implementation strategies that support reach, fidelity and sustainability. In addition, as this review was based on a targeted selection of databases within Psychology and Education, the exclusion of broader multidisciplinary indices (e.g., Web of Science or Scopus) may have limited the scope of retrieved studies. Consequently, findings should be interpreted with consideration of these methodological constraints. 4.4. Conclusion and Implications for Practice and Policy The evidence highlights that strengthening parents’ emotional communication and positive discipline skills is a powerful pathway to supporting children’s social–emotional development. Programs integrating emotion-focused coaching, structured behavior management, and systematic family support appear particularly effective and could inform national early childhood and family policies. Overall, these interventions show that empowering parents is an evidence-based strategy for fostering preschoolers’ social–emotional growth. By prioritizing parental engagement, skill-building, and opportunities for positive parent–child interaction, policymakers and practitioners worldwide can create a sustainable framework for future programs that support children’s SED by empowering their parents. Author Contributions: All author contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation of the study was coordinated by A.V. (Anastasia Vatou). The first draft of the manuscript was written by all authors and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The research work was supported by Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI) under the 5th call for HRFI PhD Fellowships (Number: 19382). Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 18 of 25 Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript: SED PAT KITS COS IY SEP TiK PCIT Triple-P RCT Social–emotional development Parents as Teacher Kids in Transition to School Circle of Security The Incredible Years Social–Emotional Prevention Program Tuning in to Kids Program Parent–Child Interaction Therapy Positive Parenting Program Randomized Control Trial References 1. Malti, T. Developing life skills in youth. In Jacobs Foundation Guidelines on Monitoring and Evaluating Life Skills for Youth Develop‐ ment; Jacobs Foundation, Ed.; Jacobs Foundation: Zurich, Switzerland, 2011; pp. 8–23. 2. Denham, S.A. Social-Emotional Competence as Support for School Readiness: What Is It and How Do We Assess It? Early Educ. Dev. 2006, 17, 57–89. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1701_4. 3. Denham, S.A.; Brown, C. “Plays Nice With Others”: Social–Emotional Learning and Academic Success. Early Educ. Dev. 2010, 21, 652–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2010.497450. 4. Li, S.; Tang, Y.; Zheng, Y. How the Home Learning Environment Contributes to Children’s Social–Emotional Competence: A Moderated Mediation Model. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1065978. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1065978. 5. Jones, D.E.; Greenberg, M.; Crowley, M. Early Social-Emotional Functioning and Public Health: The Relationship between Kindergarten Social Competence and Future Wellness. Am. J. Public Health 2015, 2283–2290. 105, https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2015.302630. 6. Denham, S.A.; Zinsser, K.M. Social and Emotional Learning during Early Childhood. In Encyclopedia of Primary Prevention and 7. Rose-Krasnor, 8. Denham, S.A.; Bassett, H.H.; Brown, C.; Way, E.; Steed, J. “I Know How You Feel”: Preschoolers’ Emotion Knowledge Contrib- Health Promotion; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 925–935. L. The Nature of Social Competence: A Theoretical Review. Soc. Dev. 1997, 6, 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.1997.tb00097.x. utes to Early School Success. J. Early Child. Res. 2015, 13, 252–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X13497354. 9. Wu, Z.; Hu, B.Y.; Fan, X.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, J. The Associations between Social Skills and Teacher–Child Relationships: A Longitudinal Study among Chinese Preschool Children. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2018, 88, 582–590. Dev. 2021, 93, 180–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.03.052. 10. Cuartas, J. The Effect of Spanking on Early Social-Emotional Skills. 11. Denham, S.A.; Bassett, H.H.; Zinsser, K.; Wyatt, T.M. How Preschoolers’ Social-Emotional Learning Predicts Their Early School Child https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13646. Success: Developing Theory-Promoting, Competency-Based Assessments. Infant Child Dev. 2014, 23, 426–454. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1840. 12. Eisenberg, N.; Cumberland, A.; Spinrad, T.L. Parental Socialization of Emotion. Psychol. Inq. 1998, 9, 241–273. 13. Davis, M.; Suveg, C.; Shaffer, A. Maternal Positive Affect Mediates the Link between Family Risk and Preschoolers’ Positive 14. Fields-Olivieri, M.A.; Cole, P.M.; Maggi, M.C. Toddler Emotional States, Temperamental Traits, and Their Interaction: Associ- https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0904_1. Affect. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 2015, 46, 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-014-0516-9. ations with Mothers’ and Fathers’ Parenting. J. Res. Pers. 2017, 67, 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.05.007. 15. Brownell, C.A.; Svetlova, M.; Anderson, R.; Nichols, S.R.; Drummond, J. Socialization of Early Prosocial Behavior: Parents’ Talk about Emotions Is Associated with Sharing and Helping in Toddlers. Infancy 2012, 18, 91–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15327078.2012.00125.x. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 16. 19 of 25 Denham, S.A. Emotional Competence during Childhood and Adolescence. In Handbook of Emotional Development; LoBue, V., Pérez-Edgar, K., Buss, K.A., Eds.; Springer Nature Switzerland AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 493–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17332-6_20. 17. Barone, L.; Lionetti, F. Attachment and Emotional Understanding: A Study on Late-Adopted Pre-Schoolers and Their Parents. Child: Care Health Dev. 2011, 38, 690–696. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2011.01296.x. 18. Thompson, R.A.; Meyer, S. Socialization of Emotion Regulation in the Family. In Handbook of Emotion Regulation; Gross, J.J., Ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 249–268. 19. Aryani, A.; Warsini, S.; Haryanti, F. Relationship between quality of care of young mothers and social-emotional development in preschool children. Belitung Nurs. J. 2018, 4, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.33546/bnj.344. 20. Blandon, A.Y.; Calkins, S.D.; Keane, S.P. Predicting Emotional and Social Competence during Early Childhood from Toddler Risk and Maternal Behavior. Dev. Psychopathol. 2010, 22, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579409990307. 21. Albritton, S.; Klotz, J.; Roberson, T. Parents as Teachers: Advancing Parent Involvement in a Childʹs Education; The University of Southern Mississippi: Hattiesburg, MS, USA, 2003. 22. Pears, K.C.; Fisher, P.A.; Bronz, K.D. An intervention to promote social emotional school readiness in foster children: Preliminary outcomes from a pilot study. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 2007, 36, 665–673. 23. Cooper, G.; Hoffman, K.; Powell, B. Circle of Security Parenting: A Relationship Based Parenting Program. Facilitator DVD Manual 5.0; Circle of Security International: Spokane, WA, USA, 2009. 24. Webster-Stratton, C. From Parent Training to Community Building. Fam. Soc. J. Contemp. Soc. Serv. 1997, 78, 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.755. 25. Ştefan, C.A. Social-Emotional Prevention Program for Preschool Children: An Analysis of a High Risk Sample. Cogn. Creier 26. Havighurst, S.; Harley, A. Tuning in to Kids: Emotionally Intelligent Parenting: Program Manual; University of Melbourne: Mel- 27. Eyberg, S. Parent-Child Interaction Therapy. Child Fam. Behav. Ther. 1988, 10, 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1300/j019v10n01_04. 28. Sanders, M.R. Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: Towards an Empirically Validated Multilevel Parenting and Family Sup- Comport./Cogn. Brain Behav. 2012, 16, 319–356. bourne, Australia, 2007. port Strategy for the Prevention of Behavior and Emotional Problems in Children. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev. 1999, 2, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021843613840. 29. Phelan, T.W. 1‐2‐3 Magic: Effective Discipline for Children 2–12, 1st ed.; Child Management Inc.: Glen Ellyn, IL, USA, 1984. 30. Phelan, T.W. 1‐2‐3 Magic: Effective Discipline for Children 2–12, 3rd ed.; ParentMagic Inc.: Glen Ellyn, IL, USA, 2003. 31. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988. 32. Ding, X.; LaBrenz, C.A.; Nulu, S.; Gerlach, B.; Faulkner, M. Impact of Parents as Teachers on Parenting-Related Protective Factors: A Pre- and Post-Evaluation. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2023, 147, 106834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.106834. 33. Schaub, S.; Ramseier, E.; Neuhauser, A.; Burkhardt, S.C.A.; Lanfranchi, A. Effects of Home-Based Early Intervention on Child Outcomes: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Parents as Teachers in Switzerland. Early Child. Res. Q. 2019, 48, 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.03.007. 34. Winston LeCroy, C.; Morrill Nisbet, K.; Schmidt, M.C. Randomized Controlled Trial of the Parents as Teacher Home Visiting Program: Outcomes of the Intervention on Families at Six Month Follow-Up. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2024, 165, 107875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107875. 35. Evidence-Based Home Visiting. Parents as Teachers. Available online: https://parentsasteachers.org/evidence-based-home-visiting/ (accessed on 16 September 2025). 36. LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. Parents as Teachers Randomized Control Trial in Arizona: 6‐ and 12‐Month Outcomes Report; LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc.: Tucson, AZ, USA, 2024. 37. Lahti, M.; Evans, C.B.R.; Goodman, G.; Schmidt, M.C.; LeCroy, C.W. Parents as Teachers (PAT) Home-Visiting Intervention: A Path to Improved Academic Outcomes, School Behavior, and Parenting Skills. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2019, 99, 451–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.01.022. 38. Pais, J.; Sexer, L.P. The Effectiveness of a Parents as Teachers Home Visitation Program on School Readiness: An Application of Complier Average Causal Effect Analysis. J. Evid.‐Based Soc. Work. 2023, 20, 637–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2023.2201233. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 39. 20 of 25 Chaiyachati, B.H.; Gaither, J.R.; Hughes, M.; Foley-Schain, K.; Leventhal, J.M. Preventing Child Maltreatment: Examination of an Established Statewide Home-Visiting Program. Child Abus. 2018, Negl. 79, 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.02.019. 40. Zigler, E.; Pfannenstiel, J.C.; Seitz, V. The Parents as Teachers Program and School Success: A Replication and Extension. J. Prim. Prev. 2008, 29, 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-008-0132-1. 41. Pears, K.C.; Fisher, P.A.; Kim, H.K.; Bruce, J.; Healey, C.V.; Yoerger, K. Immediate Effects of a School Readiness Intervention for Children in Foster Care. Early Educ. Dev. 2013, 24, 771–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2013.736037. 42. Pears, K.C.; Kim, H.K.; Fisher, P.A. Decreasing Risk Factors for Later Alcohol Use and Antisocial Behaviors in Children in Foster Care by Increasing Early Promotive Factors. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2016, 65, 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.04.005. 43. Pears, K.C.; Kim, H.K.; Healey, C.V.; Yoerger, K.; Fisher, P.A. Improving Child Self-Regulation and Parenting in Families of Pre-Kindergarten Children with Developmental Disabilities and Behavioral Difficulties. Prev. Sci. 2014, 16, 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0482-2. 44. Pears, K.C.; Carpenter, L.; Kim, H.K.; Peterson, E.; Fisher, P.A. The Kids in Transition to School Program. In Kindergarten Tran‐ sition and Readiness; LoCasale-Crouch, J., Pears, K., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90200-5_13. 45. Pears, K.C.; Kim, H.K.; Fisher, P.A. Effects of a School Readiness Intervention for Children in Foster Care on Oppositional and Aggressive Behaviors in Kindergarten. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2012, 34, 2361–2366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.08.015. 46. Lynch, F.L.; Dickerson, J.F.; Pears, K.C.; Fisher, P.A. Cost Effectiveness of a School Readiness Intervention for Foster Children. 47. Powell, B.; Cooper, G.; Hoffman, K.; Marvin, B. The Circle of Security Intervention: Enhancing Attachment in Early Parent–Child Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2017, 81, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.07.011. Relationships; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2014. 48. Huber, A.; McMahon, C.; Sweller, N. Improved Parental Emotional Functioning after Circle of Security 20-Week Parent–Child Relationship Intervention. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2016, 25, 2526–2540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0426-5. 49. Cassidy, J.; Brett, B.E.; Gross, J.T.; Stern, J.A.; Martin, D.R.; Mohr, J.J.; Woodhouse, S.S. Circle of Security–Parenting: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Head Start. Dev. Psychopathol. 2017, 29, 651–673. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579417000244. 50. Kim, M.; Woodhouse, S.S.; Dai, C. Learning to Provide Children with a Secure Base and a Safe Haven: The Circle of Security- 51. Maxwell, A.; Reay, R.E.; Huber, A.; Hawkins, E.; Woolnough, E.; McMahon, C. Parent and Practitioner Perspectives on Circle Parenting (COS-P) Group Intervention. J. Clin. Psychol. 2018, 74, 1319–1332. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22643. of Security Parenting (COS-P): A Qualitative Study. Infant Ment. Health J. 2021, 42, 452–468. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21916. 52. Risholm Mothander, P.; Furmark, C.; Neander, K. Adding “Circle of Security—Parenting” to Treatment as Usual in Three Swedish Infant Mental Health Clinics. Effects on Parents’ Internal Representations and Quality of Parent-Infant Interaction. Scand. J. Psychol. 2017, 59, 262–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12419. 53. Webster-Stratton, C.L. Incredible Years® Parent and Child Programs for Maltreating Families. In Evidence‐Based Approaches for the Treatment of Maltreated Children; Child Maltreatment; Timmer, S., Urquiza, A., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherland, 2013; pp. 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7404-9_6. 54. Overbeek, G.; van Aar, J.; de Castro, B.O.; Matthys, W.; Weeland, J.; Chhangur, R.R.; Leijten, P. Longer-Term Outcomes of the Incredible Years Parenting Intervention. Prev. Sci. 2020, 22, 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01176-6. 55. Webster-Stratton, C.; Reid, M. Adapting the Incredible Years, an Evidence-Based Parenting Programme, for Families Involved in the Child Welfare System. J. Child. Serv. 2010, 5, 25–42. https://doi.org/10.5042/jcs.2010.0115. 56. Webster-Stratton, C. The Incredible Years: Parents, Teachers, and Childrenʹs Training Series—Program Content, Methods, Research and Dissemination 1980–2011; Incredible Years: Seattle, WA, USA, 2011. 57. McGilloway, S.; Mhaille, G.N.; Bywater, T.; Furlong, M.; Leckey, Y.; Kelly, P.; Comiskey, C.; Donnelly, M. A Parenting Intervention for Childhood Behavioral Problems: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Disadvantaged Community-Based Settings. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2012, 80, 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026304. 58. Morpeth, L.; Blower, S.; Tobin, K.; Taylor, R.S.; Bywater, T.; Edwards, R.T.; Axford, N.; Lehtonen, M.; Jones, C.; Berry, V. The Effectiveness of the Incredible Years Pre-School Parenting Programme in the United Kingdom: A Pragmatic Randomised Controlled Trial. Child Care Pract. 2017, 23, 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2016.1264366. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 59. 21 of 25 Azevedo, A.F.; Seabra-Santos, M.J.; Gaspar, M.F.; Homem, T.C. The Incredible Years Basic Parent Training for Portuguese Preschoolers with AD/HD Behaviors: Does It Make a Difference? Child Youth Care Forum 2013, 42, 403–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-013-9207-0. 60. Webster-Stratton, C.H.; Reid, M.J.; Beauchaine, T. Combining Parent and Child Training for Young Children with ADHD. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 2011, 40, 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.546044. 61. Axberg, U.; Broberg, A.G. Evaluation of “The Incredible Years” in Sweden: The Transferability of an American Parent-Training Program to Sweden. Scand. J. Psychol. 2012, 53, 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2012.00955.x. 62. Karjalainen, P.; Kiviruusu, O.; Aronen, E.T.; Santalahti, P. Group-Based Parenting Program to Improve Parenting and Children’s Behavioral Problems in Families Using Special Services: A Randomized Controlled Trial in a Real-Life Setting. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2019, 96, 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.12.004. 63. Arruabarrena, I.; Rivas, G.R.; Cañas, M.; Paúl, J.D. The Incredible Years Parenting and Child Treatment Programs: A Randomized Controlled Trial in a Child Welfare Setting in Spain. Psychosoc. Interv. 2021, 31, 43–58. https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2022a2. 64. Baker-Henningham, H.; Scott, S.; Jones, K.; Walker, S. Reducing Child Conduct Problems and Promoting Social Skills in a Middle-Income Country: Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial. Br. J. 2012, Psychiatry 201, 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.111.096834. 65. Kong, M.M.; Au, T.K. The Incredible Years Parent Program for Chinese Preschoolers with Developmental Disabilities. Early Educ. Dev. 2018, 29, 494–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2018.1461987. 66. Bywater, T.; Hutchings, J.; Linck, P.; Whitaker, C.; Daley, D.; Yeo, S.T.; Edwards, R.T. Incredible Years Parent Training Support for Foster Carers in Wales: A Multi-Centre Feasibility Study. Child Care Health Dev. 2010, 37, 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01155.x. 67. Furlong, M.; McLoughlin, F.; McGilloway, S. The Incredible Years Parenting Program for Foster Carers and Biological Parents of Children in Foster Care: A Mixed Methods Study. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2021, 126, 106028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106028. 68. Hurlburt, M.S.; Nguyen, K.; Reid, J.; Webster-Stratton, C.; Zhang, J. Efficacy of the Incredible Years Group Parent Program with Families in Head Start Who Self-Reported a History of Child Maltreatment. Child Abus. Negl. 2013, 37, 531–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.10.008. 69. O’Connor, T.G.; Matias, C.; Futh, A.; Tantam, G.; Scott, S. Social Learning Theory Parenting Intervention Promotes AttachmentBased Caregiving in Young Children: Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 2013, 42, 358–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2012.723262. 70. Sicotte, R.; Letarte, M.-J.; Hélie, S.; Mallette, I.-A. L. Moderating Role of the Form of Maltreatment Experienced by Children on 71. Scott, S.; O’Connor, T.G.; Futh, A.; Matias, C.; Price, J.; Doolan, M. Impact of a Parenting Program in a High-Risk, Multi-Ethnic 72. Menting, A.T.A.; Orobio de Castro, B.; Matthys, W. Effectiveness of the Incredible Years Parent Training to Modify Disruptive the Effectiveness of a Parent Training Program. Child Maltreatment 2018, 23, 334–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559518790695. Community: The PALS Trial. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2010, 51, 1331–1341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02302.x. and Prosocial Child Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2013, 33, 901–913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.07.006. 73. Gardner, F.; Leijten, P.; Mann, J.; Landau, S.; Harris, V.; Beecham, J.; Bonin, E.-M.; Hutchings, J.; Scott, S. Could Scale-up of Parenting Programmes Improve Child Disruptive Behaviour and Reduce Social Inequalities? Using Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis to Establish for Whom Programmes Are Effective and Cost-Effective. Public Health Res. 2017, 5, 1–144. https://doi.org/10.3310/phr05100. 74. Leijten, P.; Gardner, F.; Melendez-Torres, G.J.; van Aar, J.; Hutchings, J.; Schulz, S.; Knerr, W.; Overbeek, G. Meta-Analyses: Key Parenting Program Components for Disruptive Child Behavior. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2019, 58, 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2018.07.900. 75. Webster-Stratton, C.; Bywater, T. The Incredible Years® Series: An Internationally Evidenced Multimodal Approach to Enhancing Child Outcomes. In APA Handbook of Contemporary Family Psychology: Family Therapy and Training (Vol. 3); American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; pp. 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000101-021. 76. Ştefan, C.A. The Conceptual Framework of the Social-Emotional Prevention Program. In Social‐Emotional Prevention Programs for Preschool Children’s Behavior Problems; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 41–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-319-74751-4_2. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 77. 22 of 25 Ştefan, C.A. Assessing SEP Efficacy at the Classroom Level: Effects on Children’s Social-Emotional Competencies and Behavior Problems. In Social‐Emotional Prevention Programs for Preschool Children’s Behavior Problems; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 67–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74751-4_3. 78. Ştefan, C.A.; Miclea, M. Effectiveness of the Social-Emotional Prevention Program as a Function of Children’s Baseline Risk Status. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 2014, 22, 14–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2013.865359. 79. Wilson, K.R.; Havighurst, S.S.; Harley, A.E. Tuning in to Kids: An Effectiveness Trial of a Parenting Program Targeting Emotion Socialization of Preschoolers. J. Fam. Psychol. JFP J. Div. Fam. Psychol. Am. Psychol. Assoc. 2012, 26, 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026480. 80. Havighurst, S.S.; Wilson, K.R.; Harley, A.E.; Prior, M.R.; Kehoe, C. Tuning in to Kids: Improving Emotion Socialization Practices in Parents of Preschool Children--Findings from a Community Trial. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry Allied Discip. 2010, 51, 1342–1350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02303.x. 81. Havighurst, S.S.; Wilson, K.R.; Harley, A.E.; Kehoe, C.; Efron, D.; Prior, M.R. “Tuning into Kids”: Reducing Young Children’s Behavior Problems Using an Emotion Coaching Parenting Program. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 2012, 44, 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-012-0322-1. 82. Havighurst, S.S.; Murphy, J.L.; Kehoe, C.E. Trauma-Focused Tuning in to Kids: Evaluation in a Clinical Service. Children 2021, 83. Havighurst, S.S.; Wilson, K.R.; Harley, A.E.; Kehoe, C.E. Dads Tuning in to Kids: A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Emotion 8, 1038. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8111038. Socialization Parenting Program for Fathers. Soc. Dev. 2019, 28, 979–997. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12375. 84. Havighurst, S.S.; Kehoe, C.E.; Harley, A.E. Tuning in to Teens: Improving Parental Responses to Anger and Reducing Youth Externalizing Behavior Problems. J. Adolesc. 2015, 42, 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.04.005. 85. Lauw, M.S.M.; Havighurst, S.S.; Wilson, K.R.; Harley, A.E.; Northam, E.A. improving parenting of toddlers’ emotions using an emotion coaching parenting program: A pilot study oftuning in to toddlers. J. Community Psychol. 2014, 42, 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21602. 86. Ambrosi, C.C.; Kavanagh, P.S.; Evans, S.; Havighurst, S.S. Tuning in to Kids Together: Piloting an Emotion-Focused Coparenting Program. Fam. Process 2025, 64, e70002. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.70002. 87. Cooley, M.E.; Veldorale-Griffin, A.; Petren, R.E.; Mullis, A.K. Parent–Child Interaction Therapy: A Meta-Analysis of Child Be- 88. Gurwitch, R.H.; Messer, E.P.; Funderburk, B.W. Parent-Child Interaction Therapy. In Evidence‐Based Treatments for Trauma Re‐ havior Outcomes and Parent Stress. J. Fam. Soc. Work. 2014, 17, 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2014.888696. lated Disorders in Children and Adolescents; Landolt, M., Cloitre, M., Schnyder, U., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46138-0_16. 89. Eyberg, S.M. Dyadic Parent‐Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS): Comprehensive Manual for Research and Training; PCIT International, Incorporated: Kalispell, MT, USA, 2013. 90. McNeil, C.B.; Hembree-Kigin, T.L. Parent‐Child Interaction Therapy; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-88639-8. 91. Thomas, R.; Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J. Accumulating Evidence for Parent-Child Interaction Therapy in the Prevention of Child 92. Mersky, J.P.; Topitzes, J.; Grant-Savela, S.D.; Brondino, M.J.; McNeil, C.B. Adapting Parent–Child Interaction Therapy to Foster Maltreatment. Child Dev. 2011, 82, 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01548.x. Care. Res. Soc. Work. Pract. 2014, 26, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731514543023. 93. Berkovits, M.D.; O’Brien, K.A.; Carter, C.G.; Eyberg, S.M. Early Identification and Intervention for Behavior Problems in Primary Care: A Comparison of Two Abbreviated Versions of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy. Behav. Ther. 2010, 41, 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2009.11.002. 94. Graziano, P.A.; Bagner, D.M.; Slavec, J.; Hungerford, G.; Kent, K.; Babinski, D.; Derefinko, K.; Pasalich, D. Feasibility of Intensive Parent–Child Interaction Therapy (I-PCIT): Results from an Open Trial. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 2014, 37, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-014-9435-0. 95. Niec, L.N.; Barnett, M.L.; Prewett, M.S.; Shanley Chatham, J.R. Group Parent–Child Interaction Therapy: A Randomized Control Trial for the Treatment of Conduct Problems in Young Children. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2016, 84, 682–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040218. 96. Stokes, J.O.; Wallace, N.M.; McNeil, C.B. Effectiveness of Community-Delivered Parent-Child Interaction Therapy Compared to Usual Care. Child Fam. Behav. Ther. 2018, 40, 279–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317107.2018.1522232. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 23 of 25 97. Leung, C.; Tsang, S.; Sin, T.C.S.; Choi, S. The Efficacy of Parent–Child Interaction Therapy with Chinese Families. Res. Soc. Work. 98. Sanders, M.R. Development, Evaluation, and Multinational Dissemination of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program. Annu. 99. Sanders, M.R. Adopting a Public Health Approach to the Delivery of Evidence-Based Parenting Interventions. Can. Psychol./Psy‐ Pract. 2014, 25, 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731513519827. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2012, 8, 345–379. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143104. chol. Can. 2010, 51, 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018295. 100. Sanders, M.R. The Triple P System of Evidence-Based Parenting Support: Past, Present, and Future Directions. Triple P Syst. Evid.‐Based Parent. Support Past Present Future Dir. 2023, 26, 880–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-023-00441-8. 101. Gagné, M.-H.; Clément, M.-È.; Milot, T.; Paradis, H.; Voyer-Perron, P. Comparative Efficacy of the Triple P Program on Parenting Practices and Family Violence against Children. Child Abus. Negl. 2023, 141, 106204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106204. 102. Sofronoff, K.; Jahnel, D.; Sanders, M. Stepping Stones Triple P Seminars for Parents of a Child with a Disability: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2011, 32, 2253–2262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.07.046. 103. Sanders, M.R.; Kirby, J.N.; Tellegen, C.L.; Day, J.J. The Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: A Systematic Review and MetaAnalysis of a Multi-Level System of Parenting Support. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2014, 337–357. 34, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.04.003. 104. Schilling, S.; Lanier, P.; Rose, R.A.; Shanahan, M.; Zolotor, A.J. A Quasi-Experimental Effectiveness Study of Triple P on Child Maltreatment. J. Fam. Violence 2019, 35, 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00043-5. 105. Zhou, Y.Q.; Chew, Q.R.C.; Lee, M.; Zhou, J.; Chong, D.; Quah, S.H.; Ho, M.; Tan, L.J. Evaluation of Positive Parenting Programme (Triple P) in Singapore: Improving Parenting Practices and Preventing Risks for Recurrence of Maltreatment. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2017, 83, 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.10.029. 106. Dahlberg, A.; Salari, R.; Fängström, K.; Fabian, H.; Sarkadi, A. Successful Implementation of Parenting Support at Preschool: An Evaluation of Triple P in Sweden. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0265589. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265589. 107. Heinrichs, N.; Kliem, S.; Hahlweg, K. Four-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Triple P Group for Parent and Child Outcomes. Prev. Sci. 2013, 15, 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0358-2. 108. Özyurt, G.; Gencer, Ö.; Öztürk, Y.; Özbek, A. Is Triple P Positive Parenting Program Effective on Anxious Children and Their Parents? 4th Month Follow up Results. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2015, 25, 1646–1655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0343-z. 109. Yusuf, Ö.; Gonka, Ö.; Pekcanlar Aynur, A. The Effects of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Programme on Parenting, Family Functioning and Symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. A Randomized Controlled Trial. Psychiatry Clin. Psy‐ chopharmacol. 2018, 29, 665–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750573.2018.1542189. 110. Phelan, T.W. 1‐2‐3 Magic: Effective Discipline for Children 2–12, 4th ed.; ParentMagic Inc.: Glen Ellyn, IL, USA, 2010. 111. Porzig-Drummond, R.; Stevenson, R.J.; Stevenson, C. The 1-2-3 Magic Parenting Program and Its Effect on Child Problem Behaviors and Dysfunctional Parenting: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Behav. Res. Ther. 2014, 58, 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2014.05.004. 112. Bailey, E.L.; van der Zwan, R.; Phelan, T.W.; Brooks, A. Keeping It Going: Evidence of Long-Term Improvements after Implementation of the 1-2-3 Magic Parenting Program. Child Fam. Behav. Ther. 2015, 37, 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317107.2015.1104776. 113. Bloomfield, L.; Kendall, S. Parenting Self-Efficacy, Parenting Stress and Child Behaviour before and after a Parenting Programme. Prim. Health Care Res. Dev. 2012, 13, 364–372. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1463423612000060. 114. Bronfenbrenner, U. Toward an Experimental Ecology of Human Development. Am. Psychol. 1977, 32, 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.32.7.513. 115. Taubner, S.; Wolter, S.; Rabung, S. Effectiveness of Early-Intervention Programs in German-Speaking Countries—A Meta-Analysis. Ment. Health Prev. 2015, 3, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhp.2015.07.001. 116. Hart, B.; Risley, T.R.; Kirby, J.R. Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Can. J. Educ. 1997, 22, 323. 117. Sparrow, S.S.; Cicchetti, D.; Balla, D.A. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, 2nd ed.; American Guidance Service: Circle Pines, MN, USA, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1037/t15164-000. 118. LeCroy, C.W.; Milligan, K.B. The Healthy Families Parenting Inventory Manual; LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc.: Tucson, AZ, USA, 2017. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 24 of 25 119. Kiplinger, V.L.; Browne, C.H. Parents’ Assessment of Protective Factors: User’s Guide and Technical Report; Center for the Study of Social Policy: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. 120. Achenbach, T.M.; Ruffle, T.M. The Child Behavior Checklist and Related Forms for Assessing Behavioral/Emotional Problems and Competencies. Pediatr. Rev. 2000, 21, 265–271. https://doi.org/10.1542/pir.21-8-265. 121. Pianta, R.C.; Cox, M.J. The changing nature of the transition to school: Trends for the next decade. In The Transition to Kinder‐ garten; Pianta, R.C., Cox, M.J., Eds.; Brookes: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1999; pp. 363–379. 122. Karreman, A.; van Tuijl, C.; van Aken, M.A.G.; Deković, M. Parenting, Coparenting, and Effortful Control in Preschoolers. J. Fam. Psychol. 2008, 22, 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.30. 123. Hamre, B.K.; Pianta, R.C. Learning opportunities in preschool and early elementary classrooms. In School Readiness and the Transition to Kindergarten in the Era of Accountability; Pianta, R.C., Cox, M.J., Snow, K.L., Eds.; Brookes: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2007; pp. 49–84. 124. Clay, M.M. Concepts About Print; Heinemann Education: Portsmouth, NH, USA, 2000. 125. Shields, A.; Cicchetti, D. Emotion Regulation among School-Age Children: The Development and Validation of a New Criterion Q-Sort Scale. Dev. Psychol. 1997, 33, 906–916. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.906. 126. Corrigan, A. Parent–Teacher Involvement Questionnaire: Parent Version (Fast Track Project Technical Report); Duke University: Durham, NC, USA, 2002. 127. Bowlby, J. Attachment and Loss, Vol. I: Attachment; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1969. 128. Abidin, R. Parenting Stress Index: Professional Manual; Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.: San Antonio, TX, USA, 1995. 129. Eyberg, S.M.; Pincus, D. Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory/Sutter‐Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory‐Revised Professional Manual; Psychological Assessment Resources: Odessa, FL, USA, 1999. 130. Lovibond, P.F.; Lovibond, S.H. The Structure of Negative Emotional States: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behav. Res. Ther. 1995, 33, 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/00057967(94)00075-u. 131. Patterson, G.R.; Reid, J.B.; Dishion, T.J. Antisocial Boys; Castalia Publishing Company: Eugene, OR, USA, 1992; Volume 4. 132. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986. 133. Piaget, J.; Inhelder, B. The Psychology of the Child; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1962. 134. Beck, A.T. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders; Penguin: New York, NY, USA, 1979. 135. Goodman, R. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 1997, 38, 581–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x. 136. Hemmeter, M.L.; Fox, L.; Snyder, P. A tiered model for promoting social-emotional competence and addressing challenging behavior. In Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early Childhood; Buysse, V., Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Eds.; Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2013; pp. 85–101. 137. Morris, A.S.; Silk, J.S.; Steinberg, L.; Myers, S.S.; Robinson, L.R. The Role of the Family Context in the Development of Emotion Regulation. Soc. Dev. 2007, 16, 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x. 138. Denham, S.A. Social Cognition, Prosocial Behavior, and Emotion in Preschoolers: Contextual Validation. Child Dev. 1986, 57, 194. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130651. 139. Webster-Stratton, C. Long-Term Follow-up of Families with Young Conduct Problem Children: From Preschool to Grade School. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 1990, 19, 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp1902_6. 140. Gottman, J.M.; DeClaire, J. The Heart of Parenting: How to Raise an Emotionally Intelligent Child; Simon & Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 1997. 141. Hayes, S.C.; Follette, V.M.; Linehan, M.M. (Eds.) Mindfulness and Acceptance: Expanding the Cognitive‐Behavioral Tradition; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004. 142. Gratz, K.L.; Roemer, L. Multidimensional Assessment of Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation: Development, Factor Structure, and Initial Validation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 2004, 26, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:joba.0000007455.08539.94. 143. Baumrind, D. Effects of Authoritative Parental Control on Child Behavior. Child Dev. 1966, 37, 887–907. https://doi.org/10.2307/1126611. 144. Hanf, C. A two stage program for modifying maternal controlling during mother-child (MC) interaction. In Proceedings of the Western Psychological Association Meeting American Psychological Association (APA), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 18–21 June 1969. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017 Encyclopedia 2026, 6, 17 25 of 25 145. Axline, V.M. Play Therapy: The Inner Dynamics of Childhood; Read Books Ltd.: London, UK, 2012. 146. Patterson, G.R. Coercive Family Process; Castalia Press: Eugene, OR, USA, 1982. 147. Bandura, A. Self‐Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1997. 148. Beck, A.T.; Ward, C.H.; Mendelson, M.; Mock, J.; Erbaugh, J. An Inventory for Measuring Depression. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 1961, 4, 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1961.01710120031004. 149. Sedlar, G.; Hansen, D.J. Anger, Child Behavior, and Family Distress: Further Evaluation of the Parental Anger Inventory. J. Fam. Violence 2001, 16, 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1012220809344. 150. Skinner, B.F. Methods and theories in the experimental analysis of behavior. Behav. Brain Sci. 1984, 7, 511–523. 151. Bandura, A.; Walters, R.H. Social Learning Theory; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1977; Volume 1, pp. 141–154. 152. Bloomfield, L.; Kendall, S.; Applin, L.; Dearnley, K.; Edwards, L.; Hinshelwood, L.; Lloyd, P.; Newcombe, T. A Qualitative Study Exploring the Experiences and Views of Mothers, Health Visitors and Family Support Centre Workers on the Challenges and Difficulties of Parenting. Health Soc. Care Community 2005, 13, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2005.00527.x. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010017