Talk:Parent management training

Various Forms

"Various forms of PMT" is vague. The original PMT is PMT-Oregon Model (PMTO). Incredible Years(IY) is more ecletic than PMT, the creator of IY says “In a way, the work is a synthesis of my origins on the East Coast, where the psycho-dynamic was pervasive, and my life here on the West Coast where there is a tradition of behaviorism." http://www.preventionaction.org/people/incredible-journey-one-skinner-pigeon/614. Anyone who compares IY and the Kazdin Method will see that IY utilizes a broader set of methods.

Not sure about the family tree of all the "forms" listed and how they relate to PMTO. Maybe they all have some elements that derive from PMTO. Do we really need to sort this out? Perhaps we should back out of the "various forms" thing. Just list them in a "See Also" section or something unless someone can properly document how they are related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadamsmar (talk • contribs) 17:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tadamsmar, welcome to Wikipedia! You can sign your talk page entries by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. I agree that there is a problem with vagueness throughout the article, but also, in terms of mentioning specific forms of PMT, we need to base that on what secondary reviews say. At the moment, I don't have access to all of those sources, and I'm hoping the editor who wrote the article (and has the sources), will weigh in. If that doesn't happen, your idea of moving any links to specific forms of PMT to the See also section might be the way to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a paragraph starting "Specific treatments that can be broadly chracterized as PMT include..." that I think is more accurate characterization of the situation. The "Various forms of PMT..." paragraph is mostly redundant on the latter and less accurate IMO. I think those two paragraphs should be merged into one or, at least, the detailed repetition should be removed. I think "brand name" should be deleted because it is too informal and a loaded term implying profiteering. Tadamsmar 18:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadamsmar (talk • contribs)

All sounds reasonable, but I thought I'd hold off a day or two to see if the editor with the sources adds anything new. On the other hand, maybe you want to give it a try yourself? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I will hold off. My overall goal is to contribute to getting all the question marks out of the article about original research and unreliable sources. Tadamsmar (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Tadamsmar, because the student who edited this article indicated s/he might not return until next month, I'm going to go ahead and make some changes over the course of today, to at least get some tags removed. I'll ping you when I'm finished, so you can suggest improvements! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Tadamsmar, I agree that it's more accurate to say, "Specific treatments that can be broadly characterized as PMT include..." rather than "Various forms..." Re: the inclusion of the Kazdin method, Alan Kazdin has been a giant in the field of PMT research (e.g., he wrote a book, Parent Management Training, summarizing PMT). The Kazdin method appears to be his own rebranding of PMT for laypeople, and his Kazdin Method book cites his PMT research as support for the Kazdin method. Therefore, I think it is plausible to consider the Kazdin method as a form of PMT. However, I am unable to find any secondary sources linking the Kazdin method to PMT, so perhaps it's better not to cite it as a treatment that can be characterized as PMT? Kguan10 (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Kguan, Kazdin Method is also called Kazdin Parent Management Training (KPMT). There is a KPMT certification for professionals, so it's not just for lay people. I feel sure it's a form of PMT, but I don't have a citation to that either. Kazdin himself is perhaps the originator of the idea that there is a class of treatments that should be called PMT since he discusses the idea in his book Parent Management Training.Tadamsmar (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Tadamsmar, good to know. I also feel fairly certain that Kazdin Method/KPMT counts as PMT, but we can leave it off the list since there isn't a solid citation. Kguan10 (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If I had found a secondary review that mentions Kazdin, I would have included it. I will look again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Tadamsmar, I have seven recent reviews in hand, and am all set now to expand the article based on those reviews. I thought I'd stop here to see if you have feedback on the article so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia The issues related to the Cochrane review are the only issues I see with the current text.Tadamsmar (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes

SandyGeorgia, I apologize for being swamped for the past couple of weeks. I appreciate all the enormous effort you've made towards improving the article - I think it looks great! I am happy to help expand using the newer reviews if you would like to split the workload. I have a couple of questions:

• In the Programs section: "PCIT, IYPT, Triple P and Helping the non-compliant child (HNC) are the most frequently used PMTs, having met "gold-standard criteria for well-established interventions".

Technically, on the first page this source says that PMTs in general, including the ones you listed, "are the most frequently recommended and used interventions for behavior problems in children." I do not know of any data on recommendations and use of PMTs that indicate the interventions listed as being most frequently used, therefore I think it would be more accurate to say something like, "PCIT, IYPT, Triple P and Helping the non-compliant child (HNC) are among the PMT programs with the strongest research support, having met "gold-standard criteria for well-established interventions".

The source said they were the most used; please re-read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you please point me to the exact quote you're using to source this. All I see is on the first page, "...with many PMTs meeting the gold-standard criteria for well-established interventions. PMTs, such as HNC, Triple P, and the Incredible Years, are the most frequently recommended and used interventions for behavior problems in children because of their demonstrated effectiveness." That is not the same as saying those specific interventions are most frequently used. Kguan10 (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the exact quote from the fist page of the article: I do not understand the confusion. If they had wanted to mention other PMTs, they would have. I'm unsure why your quote above didn't include all of those they listed. PMTs, such as Helping the Non-Compliant Child, Parent–Child Interaction Therapy, Triple P-Parenting Program, and the Incredible Years, are the most frequently recommended and used interventions for behavior problems in children because of their demonstrated effectiveness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that the problem is the placement of the gold-standard portion! Will fix, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorgia, the placement of the gold-standard portion is better now. But I also meant that the article listed PMTs only as examples of PMTs in general, such that without the clause listing the specific PMTs, the sentence reads, "PMTs... are the most frequently recommended and used interventions for behavior problems in children because of their demonstrated effectiveness." The inclusion of "such as Helping the Non-Compliant Child, Parent–Child Interaction Therapy, Triple P-Parenting Program, and the Incredible Years," means that the specific interventions listed are only examples. I think it is inaccurate to say that those four programs are the most frequently recommended and used. Tadamsmar or other users, does that make sense?

I added one word to the existing sentence in the article, so it now reads, "PCIT, IYPT, Triple P and Helping the non-compliant child (HNC) are among the most frequently used PMTs." Kguan10 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

While I think the source is clear that they *are* the most frequently used, but I'm not going to quibble one word. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Re: the last paragraph of the History section: "Evidence in support of PMT has not always been rigorously examined; Furlong et al say that a 2006 review of PMT for the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) gave the same weight to one unreplicated study as another program that met all the criteria for a high-quality study. Because of many other methodological issues in earlier reviews, the authors said that clear evidence in support of PMT was not available."

I am confused about the last sentence. In skimming through Furlong et al., the authors' conclusion is that PMT "appears to be effective in reducing child conduct problems and in improving parenting skills..." (p. 363), so it's unclear to me how that qualifies as "clear evidence in support of PMT was not available." Or were you summarizing what the authors said about previous reviews? If so, clarification would be helpful so that readers don't read one thing about positive effects in the Effects section and another thing in the History section. Kguan10 (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Not available for ADHD, is available for behavioral disruptions, conduct disorder, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I cannot find a claim in the Cochrane review that says that results are not available for ADHD, maybe that's from another source. Also, the last paragraph of the History Section makes blanket criticisms that are not limited to ADHD. If you read the Cochrane review, you will see that the criticisms in the last paragraph of the History Section were taken out of context. The context is that these criticisms are from the part of the review that explains why the Cochrane review was needed, these are criticism of the situation prior to the review, saying the NICE review was not rigorous and therefore clear evidence of support for PMT was not available. The Cochrane review itself is supportive of PMT because they found enough studies to meet their more rigorous standards. This paragraph should pretty much state the opposite of what it currently states concerning the final conclusions of the Cochrane review.Tadamsmar (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia search the review for the term "NICE" and you will see the context and that these are not actual conclusions of the Cochrane review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.227.194 (talk • contribs) 13:35, December 28, 2014

I will look at this again when I am home later this evening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Here's a suggested change, staring with a revision of the last sentence: Because of many other methodological issues in earlier reviews, the authors said that clear evidence in support of PMT was not available from earlier reviews.[12] The authors conducted their own review and concluded the interventions "are effective and cost-effective for improving child conduct problems, parental mental health and parenting skills in the short term."[15]134.67.8.204 (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I will work on this today, but no, I won't be reviewing the reviews in text. This issue occurred because several of you didn't recognize the last section was HISTORY, and if you didn't recognize that, that means other readers may not, so I will be reworking the whole thing. I also see a new name appeared in the lead that is not sourced and not mentioned in the body, so as I rework History, I'll be looking at that.

No problem, just a suggestion. I think the revisions you have made look good. I guess the new name was Montrose Wolf that I added? No problem with removing it, I was just following the existing pattern of adding people who originated the application of operant conditioning to conduct issues. I see the current list of names are all now sourced in the text. If you want to look into Montrose Wolf, he already has a Wikipedia page that cites the best source on his accomplishments that I know of.Tadamsmar (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is some of the text wasn't built correctly to begin with-- that is, mentioning specifically and only what independent secondary sources mention. (There was some original research in the article a month ago.) We should be there now. We wouldn't look to Wolf's article for specifically what he has studied: we look for specifically a secondary review of this topic to mention Wolf's relevance to this topic. Again, that's not how the article was built a month ago, but it is what we should be doing. If secondary reviews (independent of wolf) say Wolf is important, then Wolf gets included here. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In the past few weeks, I included all of the newly found secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Red links

Please see WP:RED. [1] There are sufficient secondary reviews discussing those programs that they meet notability, hence should be red-linked because an article could be created. We would remove a red-link only when an article is never likely to be created because sources don't exist, the topic doesn't meet notability, or there is already an article where content would better belong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS): a challenge to PMT?

I think this is bit of a can of worms, but I thought I would bring it up just to perhaps broaden the horizons of the contributors if for no other reason. Abstact here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24651507, full text here: http://www.thinkkids.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/CPS-Outcomes-7-2013.pdf, easy-to-read summary here: http://thinkkids.org/learn/our-collaborative-problem-solving-approach/

The idea is "Skill not Will". PMT is all operant conditioning with no skills training. The CPS viewpoint is that externalizing kids lack skills and that they already have sufficient reinforcement.

But, there are plenty of treatments that combine PMT with skill-training, there are papers on such combinations, it's not like mixing oil and water. One of the problems with the notion of abstracting out PMT/operant conditioning as the common core of a family of treatments is that a description of common core may fail to fully describe any of the actual treatments.

Anyway CPS is new, the reference above is by one of the creators of CPS, so I don't consider it to be independent. I don't know of any secondary review of this counter-claim to PMT.

By the way "Collaborative Problem Solving" has a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadamsmar (talk • contribs) 14:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tadamsmar; I've linked the CPS page in your post above, and will have a look at this when I'm home tonight. (The first thing I have to sort out is whether CPS should be uppercase, since it's trademarked.) The citation would be:

• Pollastri AR, Epstein LD, Heath GH, Ablon JS (2013). "The Collaborative Problem Solving approach: outcomes across settings" (PDF). Harv Rev Psychiatry. 21 (4): 188–99. doi:10.1097/HRP.0b013e3182961017. PMID 24651507.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a paper on how adding a particular type of skills training enhances the effect of PMT:

• Kazdin AE, Siegel TC, Bass D (1992). "Cognitive problem-solving skills training and parent management training in the treatment of antisocial behavior in children" (PDF). J Consult Clin Psychol. 60 (5): 733–747. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.60.5.733. PMID 1401389.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Google indicates 699 citations to this article so, perhaps there are some recent secondary reviews of the idea. By the way, that doi link I just defined takes one to a option to buy, and the doi link you defined above seems to be a bad link even though it seems to be the correct one from pubmed. Not sure what to think, it's my first attempt at creating a proper citation.Tadamsmar (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Strange about that DOI-- it seems to be the correct one, but goes nowhere. Oh, well, that's another reason I prefer PMIDs! I use the Diberri/Boghog citation filling template to generate a citation from a PMID. It automatically pulls the DOI, but doesn't always detect a free full URL other than PMC, so if you know of a free full URL (as in the above case), you plug that in to the URL field.

On the Pollastri CPS paper, I feel like its conclusions are too tentative to add anything here. I have added it as Further reading on the CPS article, but considering the lawsuits involved, I am uninterested in working on that article.

On the Kazdin paper, I feel that 1992 is too old to be useful here, and I'm fairly certain this was mentioned in several of the new reviews, but I'm going to have to go back through them to find what was said and where. Give me a day or so to reread all the recent reviews, because I'm pretty sure there is something there. Tadamsmar, do you have access to the full text of all the recent reviews used in the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I have full text access to some of them. The Cochrane review cites the 1992 Kazdin paper. BTW, I need to eat my earlier words about how there were probably no recent reviews! You found many.Tadamsmar (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, Reference 5, Kazdin (2010), has almost exactly the same title as Kazdin (1992): "Problem-solving skills training and parent management training for oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder." So maybe it's already covered.13:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Other conditions in lead

I have removed mention of other conditions from the lead,[2] because the nuance there is more than can be conveyed in a lead. For example, in the case of Tourette syndrome, it is children who have tics and significant (other) comorbid conditions that then have explosive behaviors, which are linearly correlated with the number of diagnoses other than TS. That is, children who have tics as well as ADHD, OCD, bipolar or other diagnoses are more likely to have explosive behaviors and PMT was found helpful for that subset of children-- not really a treatment for Tourette syndrome, which is tics. It is nuanced, but incorrect, to say PMT has been studied for TS, for example. The lead now is vague, but what was added there about other conditions left the impression that PMT is used to treat ADHD or TS or autism-- it's not really, but summarizing that in the lead would amount to rewriting what is said in the body, so I've left the lead as just a summarizing statement (which need not be cited, since it's a summary of cited statements in the article body). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Incredible Years

There is still a dead link to a non-existent wikipedia article on Incredible Years.

I was thinking about creating an article for this. But Incredible Years has a quite good web page already,www.incredibleyears.com, perhaps it's better to just cite that in this Parent Management Training article.

Given the quality of Incredible Years existing web page, I think an Incredible Years article would just draw from it. There are already independent assessments of Parent Management Training in this article, so there is not any reason I know of to look for specific independent assessments of Incredible Years.Tadamsmar (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Tadamsmar; thanks for pinging me, since I am just returning from travel and struggling to catch up. A page that you might find helpful is WP:RED. Incredible Years parent training is a helpful red link, that encourages others to begin the article. Adding the info to this article would not be optimal, since Incredible Years meets notability (many of the MEDRS-compliant secondary reviews cited in this article mention Incredible Years), which means it warrants its own article, and adding info here would be off-topic. It can have its own article, and on Wikipedia, we don't base decisions about whether to start an article on the quality of off-Wikipedia content, rather, on whether the topic is notable, which IY is. In summary, you can do nothing (leave the red link), or start the article (using the secondary sources mentioned here), but adding the info here, or citing a non-MEDRS cite for any info, isn't the way to go. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Parent management training/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this JAGUAR  15:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "(PMT)" - initials should not be in bold, per WP:BOLD

WP:BOLD is about being bold in one's editing and that seems to have noting to do with the bolding of "PMT". So I guess Jaguar (talk · contribs) meant "per MOS:BOLD". "(PMT)" is, in fact, not bolded, only "PMT" is bolded. MOS:BOLD says that "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article, and often its synonyms, in the lead section." and I think that "PMT" is a synonym for "Parent Management Training" so this seems to be a correct use of bolding according to WP:MOS guidelines. If Jaguar has a correct citation that shows otherwise, please post. It is, of course, easy enough to correct this if there is a reason.Tadamsmar (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, my mistake. I sometimes confuse myself with putting "WP" instead of "MOS". You can keep the initials in bold if you like JAGUAR  11:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• "diagnosed with Oppostional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder" - can these disorders be linked for reference?

Done.Tadamsmar (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• "such as aggression, hyperactivity, temper tantrums, and difficulty following directions" - even though I'm not qualified to suggest anything on the subject, what about ADHD/ADD? Tantrums are very common in children (believe me)

Talk:Parent_management_training#Other_conditions_in_lead explains why ADHD/ADD is not addressed in the lead. It is addressed in the body. Jaguar, is your comment "Tantrums are very common in children (believe me)" meant to be an action item or just an offhand remark? I am trying to address your action items and I am having trouble figuring this one out.Tadamsmar (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that was just an offhand remark. I have a lot of children in my family and have had to live with a lot of things... JAGUAR  11:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Unsure if the lead fully summarises the article, which is a GA requirement. I didn't see anything on the technique, limitations and history sections
• "...all contribute to early-onset conduct problems; the resulting costs to society are high" - what does this mean?

Revised to use a direct and more clarifying quote about costs from the referenced review paper.Tadamsmar (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• "s/he has achieved the end goal of getting out of the chore" - sounds informal.

Revised to use the more formal language of Functional analysis (psychology), and provided a link to same. Note that informal language and explanations are used in the delivery of PMT to parents since almost all parents are layman. But PMT can be discussed the more formal language.Tadamsmar (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Some sentences out of the Technique section may contain WP:OR, I am seeing some weasel words and would benefit from a copyedit
• " (such as praise, smiles, and hugs)" - again, quite informal

The context of this quote is "social rewards (such as praise, smiles, and hugs)". The informal part is just there to explain the more formal term "social rewards". It's my understand that "social rewards" is a proper formal technical term in psychology, and it is always defined using terms like attention, praise, enthusiasm, smiles, hugs, touch, high fives. If this is a show stopper, then we could leave the term "social rewards" undefined or use an external link or create a Wikipedia page for "social rewards", but that would just bury the informal definition/explanation of the term "social rewards" out of immediate sight. I did add "attention" to the list since it's viewed by some experts as the most important social reward.Tadamsmar (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• "For mildly annoying but not dangerous behavior" - what is this meant to mean? More WP:WEASEL

Changed to "For unwanted behavior that is not dangerous or aggressive". This is a much more accurate description of PMT guidance in my opinion.Tadamsmar (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• " Parents also learn to remove their child's privileges, such as television or play time" - more unencylopedic phrases

revised to remove "play time"Tadamsmar (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• The red links in the Programs section would be better of being removed if not notable

removed red links, added links to External Links section so that all programs have either an external link or a link to its Wikipedia page.Tadamsmar (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

References

• No dead links, and all the refs are formatted correctly, so this meets the GA criteria

Close - not listed

I am sorry to do this, but I am failing this on grounds of original research concerns, the majority of the prose contains informal content and numerous weasel words which would benefit from a serious copyedit in order for this to meet the GA criteria. Please let me know if you need to ask anything JAGUAR  22:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Parent management training/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 13:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating this again. It looks like this article has improved significantly, so I'll leave some comments ASAP. JAGUAR  13:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I worked quite a bit on this article after it was edited by students, trying to bring student work in to better compliance with Wikipedia standards, but it was never up to GA standard and should not have been submitted. I see some deterioration since the GA failed ... some correctly cited critical text has been removed, and some undue text has been added to the lead claiming 80% efficacy since the failed GA, while the major copyedit needed has not been done.. I'd suggest reverting back to the failed GA version, and redoing from there. Sorry I am not around to help, but this article was never, and is not now, at GA standard. It's even a bit POV now, with critical text deleted and undue claims of efficacy in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been asked to review the article again over two months and I'll be happy to oblige. I haven't had a full look at it yet, but when I start the review I'll do it from a reader's perspective at first and then after that I think I'll pry deeper into the sources. But with that being said, I'm not well versed on this subject and personally I would hate to fail the same article twice... JAGUAR  20:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to fail a faulty article twice, then you should not have picked up the GA review; please leave it to someone who understands sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The 80% efficacy claim (which I did not add, BTW) is un-sourced, but it's arguably not undue. One source is Kazdin's book "Kazdin Method": "Our research shows that about 80 percent of even the most serious cases of child conduct disorder respond well to my method,..."http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/NewYearNewYou/story?id=4127767&page=1&singlePage=true.

The Kazdin Method is a version of PMT.Tadamsmar (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That is not an independent, third-party source. I have every recent secondary review on the topic, and no such claim can be sourced. The article is POV, and all of the faulty edits since the last GA review should be reverted.

Additionally, the correct red links to notable concepts were removed at the suggestion of the last GA review. Please review WP:RED; all of those links were to topics that met notability and they should not have been removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "Parent management training (PMT)," - no need for comma here
  • • Introduced in the same POV edit that should be reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• "with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (OOD) and Conduct Disorder (CD)" - 'disorder' shouldn't be capitalised (I'm using their articles as barometers)
  • • Introduced in the same POV edit that should be reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• "With an almost 80% success rate in significantly decreasing these behaviors the program aims to teach parents" - syntax issue (missing comma). Would read better as With an almost 80% success rate in significantly decreasing these behaviors, the program aims to teach parents. By the way, are they disorders or behaviours?
  • • Not based no an independent, third-party source; biased, POV, should be reverted. No independent secondary recent review makes such a claim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• " focuses on parents learning to provide positive reinforcement, such as praise and rewards, for children's appropriate behaviors while setting proper limits" - I found this confusing, are the praise and rewards related to the end of the sentence here?
• Per WP:LEADCITE, I would recommend cutting down on a few citations in the lead that aren't essential or can be moved elsewhere
  • This is a faulty interpretation of LEADCITE; there is nothing cited in the lead that should not be cited. The 80% claim, of course, should be cited and is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• The Technique section could do with some more Wiki-links. "Substance abuse" and certain mental health issues could be linked
• "all contribute to early-onset conduct problems; The cost of PMT is "modest when compared with the long-term health, social, educational and legal costs associated with childhood conduct problems"" - "the" shouldn't be capitalised if it is next to a semi-colon. Also, where did the quote come from? If it came from an author or scholar, mention them!
• "Negative parenting practices and negative child behavior" - no need for duplicate negative
• "For example, if a child throws a temper tantrum to avoid doing a chore" - I still think "chore" sounds informal, maybe something like "command"?
• " the parent may respond by yelling that the child must do it" - again, yelling sounds informal and unencyclopaedic
• "as well as concrete rewards (such as stickers or points towards a larger reward as part of an incentive system created collaboratively with the child)" - this would work without the brackets
• "In addition to positive reinforcement and limit setting in the home" - is this trying to say that PMT should not be limited to domestic use?
  • • The prose problems in this article have been correctly identified. It is not at GA standard and never has been. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• I think the last sentence on the technique section "PMT is underutilized and training for therapists and other providers..." would be better of merged with another paragraph
• "The theory behind PMT has been "repeatedly validated"" - by who?
• "according to Menting et al (2013)" - what is this? This wouldn't make sense to the average reader
  • • I do not understand why you do not understand this; it is fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• "which according to the authors of a Cochrane review" - can Cochrane be linked if possible?
  • • sure should be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• "or parents my not be able to stay engaged" - may
• "Although the bulk of the research on PMT examines its impact on disruptive behavior, it has also been studied as an intervention for other conditions" - this sounds a lot like original research
  • • This sounds like the reviewer has not read the article, specifically the section on other conditions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• "A 2009 review of long-term outcomes in children with Tourette syndrome (TS) said that, in those children with TS who have other comorbid conditions" - might read better as A 2009 review of long-term outcomes in children with Tourette syndrome (TS) said that, those who suffer with comorbid conditions?
  • • Saying that someone "suffers" from a condition is not only POV-- it is against WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

In summary; multiple problems with this review, but no doubt this article never was at GA standard. It was a student-edited article I attempted to bring into compliance with policy, but never to bring to GA level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

On hold

There are still some prose and organisational issues that prevents this article from meeting the GA criteria. I haven't yet done a full spotcheck on the sources, but I can tell that there is potential in this article as it does appear to be thoroughly researched. I'll have to think about this... JAGUAR  17:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Jaguar, it's been three weeks since you put this on hold. Tadamsmar's only edits since then have been to make the August 24 comment above. Given that no edits have been made to the article to address the issues you enumerated above, I think it's time to close the review. I can understand your reluctance to fail a nomination twice running, but without active nominator participation, you aren't left with much choice. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, both SandyGeorgia and Tadamsmar appear inactive and haven't yet attended to the review, no doubt with real life obligations? I really didn't want to do this, but I'll have to close this review for now due to inactivity. Tadamsmar, please message me once you log back on and if you like I can begin another review of this. JAGUAR  19:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Jaguar, I'd like to suggest that before Tadamsmar messages you, that all the items in the above review be addressed, and that a peer review be requested and completed to help gain insight on what remains to be done to make the article ready for a GA review. SandyGeorgia said from the outset she wouldn't be able to help, but she had significant doubts about the article's readiness for GA, and the peer review would help establish where it still isn't ready and what sort of work is needed. I doubt either of you want to have a third GA review fail, and that sounds like a real possibility without significant work prior to the next nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right. I'll message Tadamsmar to initiate a peer review before nominating for GA again. This article will need a significant amount of work before meeting the criteria, and that is bearing in mind that I didn't do a full source check in this review. JAGUAR  20:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple issues with this article, both predating the first review and and as a result of both faulty reviews. Per BlueMoonset. Jaguar, please do not re-pick up this GA review; leave it to someone who understands the issues. You indicated something sounded like "original research", which is a hint you don't understand or haven't read the article. When I have time I will fix the errors and issues introduced since and by your review. For now, there is a statement in the lead which is not even based on a third-party source, among other things and is POV and biased. I again suggest reverting to the version at the end of the last GA review, which was at least correct even though not at GA standard. If Tadasmar wants to submit it to GA again, I suggest that WT:MED be approached, and all of the secondary reviews (which I have) be consulted, and the article be thoroughly re-written and copyedited. It is a fix-up of student editing at this point, and little more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: there's no need to be rude about it. I took this review on request from Tadamsmar and was happy to offer a review. I know I'm not well versed in the theory of parent management training or anything else medical related on that matter, but really how many people on WP will be knowledgeable in that sort of thing? And if so who would be well versed in the GA criteria? I read every article I review, that's so basic. The lead doesn't need to be referenced, unless in the rare chance that the information is controversial, where in this case it isn't and thus the citations need to be moved to the body. I've read this article at least five times straight as I've reviewed it twice now. It's up to Tadamsmar on where he wants to take this next. I would recommend a peer review so that some members of WP:MED can look at the content, and then he could ask me to review it again as I'm a regular GA reviewer and know what meets the criteria. JAGUAR  17:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)