A Systematic Review of Parenting Interventions to Support Siblings of Children with a Chronic Health Condition

This systematic review summarises the parenting intervention literature for parents of children who have a sibling with a chronic health condition, and evaluates intervention efficacy for improving parent (parenting skills, parenting efficacy) and child (emotional and behavioural adjustment, condition knowledge, quality of life) outcomes. Electronic databases were searched to identify relevant papers published in English from inception until May 2020. Reference lists of eligible papers were further searched for relevant articles. Six papers (two controlled trials, four uncontrolled trials) evaluating four separate intervention programs met inclusion criteria. All included parent- and child-focused intervention components. Results showed an overall trend for pre- to post-intervention improvement in children's behavioural and emotional adjustment and health condition knowledge. Few studies examined effects on parent outcomes, and there was no evidence of change on these measures. Overall, results suggest that parenting interventions may help to improve siblings' emotional and behavioural adjustment and condition knowledge; however, all of the interventions combined parent- and child-directed intervention components, making it difficult to determine which intervention elements drive change. Further research is needed to test mechanisms by which parenting interventions may improve outcomes for siblings of children with chronic health conditions, and to establish the efficacy of this approach.

How Do We Choose Our Giants? Perceptions of Replicability in Psychological Science

Judgments regarding replicability are vital to scientific progress. The metaphor of “standing on the shoulders of giants” encapsulates the notion that progress is made when new discoveries build on previous findings. Yet attempts to build on findings that are not replicable could mean a great deal of time, effort, and money wasted. In light of the recent “crisis of confidence” in psychological science, the ability to accurately judge the replicability of findings may be more important than ever. In this Registered Report, we examine the factors that influence psychological scientists’ confidence in the replicability of findings. We recruited corresponding authors of articles published in psychology journals between 2014 and 2018 to complete a brief survey in which they were asked to consider 76 specific study attributes that might bear on the replicability of a finding (e.g., preregistration, sample size, statistical methods). Participants were asked to rate the extent to which information regarding each attribute increased or decreased their confidence in the finding being replicated. We examined the extent to which each research attribute influenced average confidence in replicability. We found evidence for six reasonably distinct underlying factors that influenced these judgments and individual differences in the degree to which people’s judgments were influenced by these factors. The conclusions reveal how certain research practices affect other researchers’ perceptions of robustness. We hope our findings will help encourage the use of practices that promote replicability and, by extension, the cumulative progress of psychological science.

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown on trust, attitudes toward government, and well-being

The contagiousness and deadliness of COVID-19 have necessitated drastic social management to halt transmission. The immediate effects of a nationwide lockdown were investigated by comparing matched samples of New Zealanders assessed before (N_prelockdown = 1,003) and during the first 18 days of lockdown (N_lockdown = 1,003). Two categories of outcomes were examined: (a) institutional trust and attitudes toward the nation and government and (b) health and well-being. Applying propensity score matching to approximate the conditions of a randomized controlled experiment, the study found that people in the pandemic/lockdown group reported higher trust in science, politicians, and police, higher levels of patriotism, and higher rates of mental distress compared to people in the prelockdown prepandemic group. Results were confirmed in within-subjects analyses. The study highlights social connectedness, resilience, and vulnerability in the face of adversity and has applied implications for how countries face this global challenge. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).