Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Examines self-efficacy and social identity's impact on service providers' program delivery, suggesting important implications for practice.
• SSTP professionals’ delivery data were analysed with survey data from 2 years after training. • Social identity was associated with delivery of Stepping Stones Triple P in independent analysis. • Self-efficacy mediated the relationship between social identity and use of SSTP. Identifying factors that may contribute to the use of programs following the completion of training by practitioners is of practical and theoretical importance. This study examined the role of social identity and self-efficacy in contributing to the delivery of an evidence-based parenting program. A sample of 63 multi-disciplinary professionals trained in the Stepping Stones Triple P-Positive Parenting Program, for parents of children with developmental disability, as part of a statewide roll-out were interviewed two years after training. Data on the number of hours of delivery during the 2-year period was analysed along with quantitative data obtained during interviews that assessed professionals’ self-efficacy and social identity as a Stepping Stones professional. Social identity was associated with the use of SSTP in an independent analysis, but the association was no longer significant when other factors were included in a regression model. Self-efficacy predicted the use of SSTP and was found to be a mediator in the relationship between social identity and use of SSTP. This first investigation into the role of social identity in the implementation of evidence-based parenting programs showed that social identity could play an important role. The role of self-efficacy in predicting program use was further supported in this study and the mediator function of self-efficacy is explored. The practical and theoretical implications of the role of self-efficacy and social identity in the training of professionals are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tellegen et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: