“STRIVING TO DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY”: A MIXED-METHODS PILOT 
INVESTIGATION OF TUNING IN TO KIDS FOR BLACK PARENTS OF PRESCHOOLERS 

By 

Briana Joy Williams 

A DISSERTATION  

Submitted to  
Michigan State University 
in partial fulfillment of the requirements  
for the degree of 

School Psychology – Doctor of Philosophy 

2024

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ABSTRACT 

A growing body of literature is emerging to examine the utility of emotion-focused 

parenting programs, as behaviorally-based programs currently dominate the parenting literature. 

Few of those studies examine differences in how Black parents benefit from emotion-focused 

parenting programs when they are often situated in the literature as unsupportive, which ignores 

cultural differences in parenting values and practices (Bocknek et al., 2009; Leerkes et al., 2015). 

However, evidence indicates that these practices are adaptive in Black families (e.g., McLoyd et 

al., 2019). This mixed-method randomized pilot study sought to examine preliminary fidelity, 

efficacy, and acceptability of a virtually-delivered Tuning in to Kids (TIK; Havighurst & Harley, 

2007), an emotion-focused parenting program targeting parenting practices and children’s 

emotion regulation through a strengths-based approach using emotion coaching strategies. 

Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to examine the impact of TIK for Black parents 

(N = 21; 9 Intervention; 12 Waitlist Control) of preschoolers based in the United States. Parents 

in both groups completed pre-, post-test, and one-month follow-up assessments. While there 

were no statistically significant main effects for the treatment group, based on this small sample, 

these preliminary quantitative results indicate greater positive trends for parents in the TIK 

condition compared to parents in a waitlist control group. The qualitative interviews provide 

essential information to support further examinations of TIK within a sample of Black parents. 

These promising preliminary outcomes coupled with interview data suggest that TIK is a 

promising parenting program to improve Black parents’ emotion coaching beliefs and positive 

parenting practices, which indicates the need for future research to investigate the effectiveness 

of TIK and other emotion-focused parenting programs with Black parents and assess the 

necessity of future cultural adaptations. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
To my parents, Lisa and Eric, for encouraging me and helping me envision a future where I 
could dream big, knowing you would always be there to lift me up. 

iii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

I find it difficult to put into words how grateful I am for the outpouring of love and 

support I have received throughout my dissertation and doctoral journey.  

To my family, Dr. Lisa Johnson, Eric Williams, Michael Johnson, and Paulette Williams: 

I cannot express how your phone calls, texts, and visits gave me the strength to continue doing 

this work. Thank you for letting me vent, cry, and use you as a distraction. To my grandmother, 

Tina Cheatham, and my grandfather, Thomas Cheatham, I thank you for encouraging my love of 

reading and seeking knowledge to fuel my passions. To my grandparents, Inez and Elmer 

Williams: You did not get to see me start this journey, but I have always felt your presence and 

know that I have made you proud. I also want to thank my fur babies, Storm and Colossus, who 

deserve doctoral regalia for the numerous hours of support they provided over the last five years.  

To my advisor, Dr. John Carlson: Thank you for responding to my email five years ago 

as I began searching for a faculty advisor and doctoral program to assist in my pursuit of 

advanced knowledge and school psychology training. Thank you for pushing me to grow in my 

curiosity as a scholar and for helping me secure funding to pursue those interests through a 

Summer Research Fellowship, a Dissertation Completion Fellowship, and the inaugural 

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Dissertation Grant Award from the Society for the Study of 

School Psychology. 

To my committee members, Dr. Charis Wahman, Dr. Kristin Rispoli, and Dr. Holly 

Brophy-Herb: Thank you for your guidance, expertise, and support in improving the quality and 

scope of my dissertation research. Thank you for asking questions that made me think more 

critically and for helping me make realistic decisions to help me cross this finish line. 

To my graduate research assistants, Heather Bishop and Kaelan Camp: Thank you for 

powering through with me as I fumbled through having my own RAs for the first time. You 

helped this study run smoothly, and I appreciate your dedication to this project. I could not have 

done this on my own. 

To Dr. Sophie Havighurst, the lead developer of the Tuning in to Kids program: Thank 

you for supporting my interest in Tuning in to Kids and your openness to meeting virtually with 

me from Australia throughout the years to support my development as a scholar using your 

amazing program. 

iv 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
To my friends and cohort: I am not sure what I expected when I started this journey with 

you five years ago, but I can assure you I did not anticipate spending 2.5 years writing, studying, 

learning, and connecting with you over Zoom in a global pandemic. I appreciate your support, 

laughs, tears, and listening ears as we navigated this journey together. Thank you to the MSU 

Black Grad Student Association for being such an integral support system when I first got to 

MSU. Much love and thanks go out to the community that continues to uplift me on 

#AcademicTwitter and my Discord Crew. Who knew how powerful internet-based communities 

and friendships really could be? Thank you for your support and occasional in-person (!) 

meetups that kept me going over the past few years. 

And finally, to my study participants: I imagined what this study would look like for a 

couple of years, and every iteration changed. Thank you for being open to learning something 

new and trusting me and each other with your stories, insecurities, and hopes for the future. I 

could not have done this work without you! 

v 

 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii 

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix 

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 
Importance of Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology ..................................................... 3 
Parenting and Social-Emotional Development ................................................................... 5 
Parental Meta-Emotion Philosophy .................................................................................... 6 
Group-Based Parenting Interventions ................................................................................. 8 
Tuning in to Kids ................................................................................................................ 9 
Pilot Studies ...................................................................................................................... 12 

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 15 
Role of Parents in Children’s Emotion Socialization ....................................................... 15 
Emotion Socialization in Black Families .......................................................................... 19 
Group-Based Parenting Programs..................................................................................... 23 
Emotion Coaching and Parenting Programs ..................................................................... 23 
Evaluating Treatment Success .......................................................................................... 28 
Tuning in to Kids .............................................................................................................. 29 
Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................................................................ 36 

CHAPTER 3 METHODS ............................................................................................................. 42 
Researcher Positionality.................................................................................................... 42 
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 43 
Measures ........................................................................................................................... 44 
Procedures ......................................................................................................................... 50 

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 55 
Quantitative Results .......................................................................................................... 55 
Qualitative Results ............................................................................................................ 59 

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 69 
Treatment Engagement and Fidelity ................................................................................. 69 
Treatment Efficacy............................................................................................................ 75 
Treatment Acceptability.................................................................................................... 80 
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 80 
Implications for Research ................................................................................................. 82 
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 83 
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 84 

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 85 

APPENDIX A TUNING IN TO KIDS PROGRAM FIDELITY CHECKLIST ........................ 100 

APPENDIX B DIFFICULTIES IN EMOTION REGULATION SCALE ................................. 101 

APPENDIX C PARENTAL EMOTION STYLE QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................... 104 

APPENDIX D COPING WITH CHILDREN’S NEGATIVE EMOTIONS SCALE ................ 106 

APPENDIX E TREATMENT EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE – PARENT FORM ........ 114 

vi 

 
 
 
APPENDIX F POST-INTERVENTION PARENT INTERVIEW ............................................ 117 

APPENDIX G RESEARCH PARTICIPANT INFORMATION AND CONSENT FORM...... 118 

vii 

 
 
 
 
LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Ten Steps in Intervention Research Trajectory adapted from Sheridan (2014) ............. 13 

Table 2. Study Characteristics, Outcomes, and Intervention Fidelity of Group-Based Tuning in to 
Kids ............................................................................................................................................... 31 

Table 3. Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Measures ............................................................ 40 

Table 4. Demographics and Characteristics for Participants in the TIK and WLC Groups ......... 46 

Table 5. Tuning in to Kids Group-Facilitated Sessions ................................................................ 51 

Table 6. Individual Parent-Reported Change Across Time by Variable ...................................... 55 

Table 7. Attendance and Percentages of Group Facilitator Fidelity Scores for the TIK Group… 56 

Table 8. Baseline Comparisons and Interaction Effects Between Condition across Time Points on 
Parent Outcomes ........................................................................................................................... 60 

Table 9. Baseline Comparisons and Interaction Effects Between Condition across Time Points on 
Children’s Social-Emotional Competence T-Scores .................................................................... 61 

Table 10. Joint Display of Quantitative and Qualitative Results .................................................. 71 

viii 

 
 
 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Tripartite Model of the Impact of the Family on Children's Emotion Regulation and 
Adjustment (Morris et al., 2007). Used with written permission from the author. ........................ 4 

Figure 2. Parental Meta-Emotion Philosophy Theoretical Framework adapted from Katz et al. 
(2012) .............................................................................................................................................. 8 

Figure 3. Tuning in to Kids Theoretical Model adapted from Havighurst and Harley (2007). .... 10 

Figure 4. Addressing parents' needs and promoting parent-child well-being adapted from Kane et 
al. (2007). ...................................................................................................................................... 24 

Figure 5. Participant Enrollment and Allocation. ......................................................................... 44 

ix 

 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 

Emotion socialization is broadly defined as how parents and other caregivers teach their 

children to recognize, control, express, and/or suppress their emotions (Eisenberg, Cumberland, 

et al., 1998). Emotions are socialized to reflect the values of a given familial or cultural context, 

indicating that one model of emotion socialization does not fit all. Black parents, for example, 

may socialize their children differently than their non-Black peers as they also socialize their 

children to navigate systemic barriers, such as racism (Dunbar et al., 2015, 2022). Research 

indicates that Black parents appear to use both supportive (e.g., encouraging emotional 

expressiveness) and “unsupportive” (e.g., suppression of negative emotions) parenting practices 

interchangeably as an adaptive method to protect their children from negative social perceptions 

and as a way to manage negative emotions in a variety of contexts (Leerkes & Bailes, 2019; 

McLoyd et al., 2019; Nelson, Leerkes, et al., 2012; Nelson et al., 2013). 

Social learning theory posits that children learn acceptable behaviors from parental 

modeling and observing others in their immediate environment (Bandura, 1971). Bandura’s 

theory suggests that, in general, humans develop patterns of behavior by directly observing 

others’ behaviors and through the rewards and consequences following their actions. One way to 

change children’s behaviors is to support parents in changing how they relate to their children 

and respond to their needs (Scott & Gardner, 2015). Several parenting programs are grounded in 

social learning theory and capitalize on improving parenting practices (e.g., Incredible Years and 

Triple P Positive Parenting Programs; Ryan et al., 2017; Sanders et al., 2000; Webster-Stratton, 

2006). These programs have demonstrated significant improvements in parents’ practices in 

responding to their children’s behavior (Herman et al., 2011; Leijten et al., 2017; Ogg & Carlson, 

2009) and, in turn, improved children’s problem behaviors (de Graaf et al., 2008; Posthumus et 

al., 2012; Sanders et al., 2007). Black parents are often included in these studies; however, much 

of the literature does not disaggregate results to show the impact across race and ethnicity.  

In the broader emotion socialization research, unsupportive parenting practices include 

those that seek to minimize a child’s emotions or punish them for expressing negative emotions, 

such as anger or fear (Eisenberg, Cumberland, et al., 1998). However, for Black families, 

supportive and unsupportive parenting practices that may appear unsupportive to White families 

can be protective for Black families (Leerkes & Bailes, 2019). For example, in specific settings, 

1 

 
 
 
 
a Black parent may view expressions of negative emotion in public as unacceptable due to fears 

of being misinterpreted by peers or other members of the majority race (Nelson et al., 2012; 

2013). Raval and Walker (2019) expanded on Eisenberg and colleagues’ (1998) heuristic model 

of parental emotion socialization to highlight the importance of culture in understanding 

parenting values and practices across cultural groups. The expanded framework suggests that 

Black parents may use varying parenting practices concerning how others view the child (Raval 

& Walker, 2019). These parents may seek to protect their children from being mislabeled due to 

undeserved stereotypes of Black children (e.g., hyperactivity and high energy levels; Williams et 

al., 2017). When discussing emotion socialization in Black and African American families, one 

must consider the influence of culture on the value placed on emotional expression (McLoyd et 

al., 2019). 

Dunbar and colleagues (2017) proposed a conceptual model that integrates racial/ethnic 

and emotion socialization specifically for African American families. They posit that 

racial/ethnic socialization and emotion socialization overlap in that Black families are often 

tasked with emotionally socializing their children within the context of preparing for bias to 

overcome racism. Findings in the emotion socialization literature identify unsupportive parenting 

practices as adversely impacting White children’s emotion regulation and competence (e.g., 

Bocknek et al., 2009; Leerkes et al., 2015). However, those parenting practices do not have the 

same negative outcomes for Black children (Leerkes & Bailes, 2019). Specifically, Black parents 

who suppressed their children’s negative emotions in preparation for racism and bias are 

associated with better outcomes for Black children (Dunbar et al., 2022). 

In Black families, supportive and unsupportive parenting practices may not have the 

same meaning as in White families. In this sense, practices that may appear unsupportive to 

White families can be adaptive for Black families (Leerkes & Bailes, 2019). For example, a 

Black parent may view expressions of negative emotion in public as unacceptable due to fears of 

being misinterpreted by peers or other majority culture members (Nelson, Leerkes, et al., 2012; 

Nelson et al., 2013). Nelson and colleagues (2013) found that Black children who were 

socialized to express negative emotions were more likely to have poorer academic performance 

and social-emotional competence than their White peers. Parents may seek to protect their 

children from being mislabeled due to undeserved stereotypes of Black children (e.g., 

hyperactivity and high energy levels; Williams et al., 2017). Future research investigating 

2 

 
 
 
emotion socialization within Black samples should consider the cultural implications of the 

outcomes in interpreting results. 

Importance of Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology 

Few evidence-based interventions (EBIs) have examined parenting practices for Black 

families. The American Psychological Association (APA) Presidential Task Force on Evidence-

Based Practice (2006) established that “evidence-based practice in psychology (EBPP) is the 

integration of the best available research with clinical expertise in the context of patient 

characteristics, culture, and preferences” (p. 273). By this definition, EBPPs should consider how 

interventions meet an individual’s personal needs and culture. However, emotion-focused 

interventions are conducted with predominantly White samples, suggesting the need to 

investigate the evidence to support using emotion-focused interventions for Black parents. While 

Black parents are often included in the larger samples, the results of these intervention studies 

are not disaggregated by race or ethnic group, limiting the ability to examine the effectiveness of 

EBPPs for Black families. 

One source that provides information for evidence-based interventions is the What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC). WWC is known for providing information on interventions that meet 

strict standards for behavioral interventions. Graves and colleagues (2021) examined the 

literature to see how many behavioral interventions that meet WWC standards include Black 

children in their sample. The study indicated that 16 behavioral interventions met WWC 

Standards With and Without Reservations; however, only three studies included more than 85% 

of Black children in their sample. Of those three studies, none were designed with culture in 

mind. The remaining studies either did not include Black children (n = 4) or did not indicate the 

children’s race or ethnicity (n = 15; Graves et al., 2021). Additionally, another study found that 

only 49.1% of studies reported the race/ethnicity of the participating children (Steed & Kranski, 

2020). These findings together support the need for further examination of interventions for 

Black children and their families. Intervention research should investigate differential outcomes 

related to race. 

One EBI model used in psychology is the Tripartite Model. Morris and colleagues (2007) 

presented a Tripartite Model that introduces the familial impact of children’s emotion regulation 

and adjustment. The model emphasizes how children’s emotion regulation is impacted by 

observing and modeling those in their environment, parenting practices, and parenting styles (see 

3 

 
 
 
Figure 1). Children understand how certain situations can evoke emotions early and observe how 

they should react in similar situations (Denham et al., 1997). For example, research with 

predominantly White samples has shown that negative parenting practices (e.g., dismissing, 

punitive reactions) are associated with greater reports of children’s conduct behavior problems 

(Duncombe et al., 2016; Eisenberg, Cumberland, et al., 1998; Posthumus et al., 2012; Webster-

Stratton & Hammond, 1998).  

Figure 1. Tripartite Model of the Impact of the Family on Children's Emotion Regulation and 
Adjustment (Morris et al., 2007). Used with written permission from the author. 

Interventions that support Black parents focus on various issues, including promoting 

social competence (e.g., Incredible Years; Reid et al., 2001), reducing conduct behaviors (e.g., 

Triple P; Garcia et al., 2018), and supporting racial socialization (e.g., EMBRace; Anderson et 

al., 2019). A mixed-methods study of Triple P (i.e., Positive Parenting Program) examined 

parents’ changing attitudes to spanking after exposure to the program (Criss et al., 2021). 

Qualitative results indicated that some Black parents reconsidered using spanking as discipline 

after completing Triple P. In the future, they would try to work through a problem with their 

child before resorting to spanking (Criss et al., 2021). While the Triple P program does not 

directly address spanking or physical punishment, it does emphasize positive alternative 

strategies parents can use. These findings suggest that parenting programs are effective when 

4 

 
 
 
 
teaching acceptable behaviors rather than dissuading practices perceived as negative (e.g., 

suppressing negative emotions and behaviors). Interventions similar to Triple P can effectively 

educate parents with alternative parenting practices to support their children’s development 

(Criss et al., 2021).  

Parenting and Social-Emotional Development 

Parents are a child’s first teacher in establishing a child’s emotional competence 

(Denham et al., 2015). Emotional competence refers to how we recognize, understand, and 

manage a wide range of our emotions, and children can demonstrate this process as young as 

preschool (Halberstadt et al., 2001). Children who successfully display prosocial behaviors (e.g., 

turn-taking, sharing, empathy) are likelier to experience peer acceptance and have higher-quality 

relationships (Sheridan et al., 2019). Additionally, establishing the foundation of these prosocial 

behaviors and skills can significantly improve school readiness and positive outcomes later in 

life (Denham, 2006; Kılıç, 2015; Raver, 2002). Much of the seminal research examining 

parenting and children’s social-emotional development was conducted with primarily White 

samples. It did not initially consider how the context of race and ethnicity could influence why 

parents engaged with their children’s emotion socialization. 

Parents provide the initial support children need to create a safe and caring environment 

to learn social behaviors (Delahooke, 2017). As children grow within their home environment, 

parents foster a sense of resilience in the home that solidifies the parent as a secure base (e.g., 

Ainsworth, 1989). They can potentially buffer against their child’s stress (Delahooke, 2017). As 

parents help their children develop these skills, they also undergo a crucial aspect of emotion 

regulation. Parents’ emotion regulation is linked to emotion socialization practices in that they 

are direct models of emotion-related behavior (e.g., Hajal & Paley, 2020). Emotion socialization 

theory posits that children’s emotional competence is directly related to their parent’s ability to 

regulate their emotions (Eisenberg, Cumberland, et al., 1998). Parents who struggle with 

emotionality may be unaware of their emotions and thus cannot always respond to their 

children’s negative emotions in a supportive way (e.g., Halberstadt et al., 2001). Research in a 

predominantly Black sample demonstrated that parents who struggle with emotion dysregulation 

are more likely to invalidate their children’s emotional expression, which is associated with 

increased internalizing and externalizing symptoms in adolescent children (Buckholdt et al., 

2014).  

5 

 
 
 
 
Emotions can be linked to certain parenting styles and behaviors. For example, a 

comprehensive review of maternal emotion, cognitive control, and parenting demonstrated that 

high emotional and cognitive control levels were positively associated with positive parenting 

(i.e., warmth, consistency) and low levels of harsh parenting practices (Crandall et al., 2015). 

Thus, it is vital to consider parental emotion regulation and its impact on parenting practices and 

beliefs. While these data are helpful in understanding how parents support children’s social-

emotional development, much of the research in these areas includes small subsamples of Black 

parents and caregivers (e.g., 4.5% Black parent-child dyads; Sheridan et al., 2019). Recent 

literature emphasizes how studies including Black families often replicate some of the findings 

in the broader emotion socialization research; however, there are unique differences for Black 

parents where beliefs of emotion expression are complicated by the historical and current 

realities of oppression and safety (Hajal & Paley, 2020; Labella, 2018). 

Parental Meta-Emotion Philosophy 

Gottman and colleagues (1996) developed the parental meta-emotion philosophy 

(PMEP), which indicates when parents: 

(a) said that they were aware of low-intensity emotions in themselves and in their 
children; (b) viewed the child's negative emotion as an opportunity for intimacy or 
teaching; (c) validated their child's emotion; (d) assisted the child in verbally labeling the 
child's emotions; and (e) problem solved with the child, setting behavioral limits, and 
discussing goals and strategies for dealing with the situation that led to the negative 
emotion (Gottman et al., 1996, p. 244). 

This meta-emotion framework is a parenting style suggesting that parents’ beliefs and values of 

emotion influence their emotion socialization practices, which are subsequently guided by their 

abilities to regulate and express emotions (Gottman et al., 1996; Katz et al., 2012). The PMEP 

provides a foundational framework for this research, integrating parents’ beliefs of emotions and 

their impact on children’s emotional competence and understanding. 

Gottman’s PMEP provides the basis for emotion coaching (EC) – a parenting philosophy 

used to support children’s relationships with adults and improve their social-emotional 

difficulties (Gottman et al., 1997; Gus et al., 2015). Gottman and colleagues (1997) outlined five 

components of EC that support children’s emotional intelligence: (1) Being aware of children’s 

emotions, (2) Recognizing emotion as an opportunity for intimacy and teaching, (3) Listening 

emphatically and validating the child’s feelings, (4) Helping the child label the emotions, and (5) 

6 

 
 
 
Setting limits while helping the child problem-solve. Black parents consistently support overtly 

expressing positive and negative emotions (Dunbar et al., 2015; McLoyd et al., 2019), suggesting 

a potential strength in being aware of children’s emotions and helping them verbally label 

emotions. Overall, Black parents who employ an EC style report reduced internalizing symptoms 

in their children between the ages of seven and nine (Bowie et al., 2013). Crandall and 

colleagues (2015) found a negative correlation between African American mothers’ EC and their 

children’s anxiety symptoms, differing from European American mothers whose self-reported 

EC was positively correlated with their children’s anxiety symptoms. 

Research in recent years has begun to focus on the positive effects of EC styles on young 

children's emotional development with great success in predominantly White samples 

(Dunsmore et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2019). Evidence suggests that the effects of EC support the 

idea that preschoolers in high-risk environments benefit more from EC than peers in 

environments of less risk (Ellis et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2019). Integrating the PMEP framework 

with EC strategies can influence children’s emotional awareness, expression, and regulation, 

profoundly impacting a child’s future developmental trajectory (see Figure 2; Katz et al., 2012). 

This framework sets the stage for parents’ impact on children’s emotion socialization; however, 

it does not consider additional barriers Black parents may face to develop the awareness and 

acceptance necessary to increase their ability to coach children through emotion dysregulation.  

The contrast to EC is the concept of emotion dismissing (ED). Parents who exhibit ED 

behaviors believe that a child's response to anger, fear, or sadness is harmful to the child and 

should be managed by the parent as quickly as possible so as not to cause further harm. ED 

practices and beliefs are often considered detrimental and unsupportive (e.g., Shaffer et al., 2012, 

2019); however, Black parents can interpret them as adaptive within various contexts (e.g., 

teaching about racial bias; Labella, 2018). These sociocultural distinctions are essential in 

interpreting parent and child outcomes within parenting literature. Dismissive parenting should 

not be viewed solely as an unsupportive parenting practice without understanding the context of 

the practice. 

7 

 
 
 
Figure 2. Parental Meta-Emotion Philosophy Theoretical Framework adapted from Katz 
et al. (2012). 

While EC parenting programs have demonstrated effectiveness in promoting positive 

parenting practices (e.g., Dunsmore et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2014) and reducing conduct 

behavior problems of young children (e.g., Chronis-Tuscano et al., 2016; Porzig-Drummond et 

al., 2014), limited research has examined how these programs affect children’s emotional 

competence and change parents’ self-reported emotion regulation processes. Additionally, the 

EC literature heavily focuses on programs with group-based interventions (e.g., Salmon et al., 

2014). Group-based parenting programs provide an active and robust means to deliver 

intervention content by giving direct instruction, using peer models within role-playing, and 

allowing the opportunity to discuss concepts with trained facilitators and peers. 

Group-Based Parenting Interventions 

Group-based interventions deliver EBIs and training to several individuals 

simultaneously, making them more time-effective and efficient for mental health professionals 

(Taylor et al., 2008). Group interventions can remove the stigma of receiving “therapy,” 

especially for individuals from groups that associate shame with seeking mental health services 

(e.g., Black families; Planey et al., 2019). Black youth and their families underutilize mental 

health services, with approximately 76.5% of Black children not accessing them when needed 

(Kataoka et al., 2002).  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Parents have rated greater satisfaction, translation of techniques to the real world, and 

usefulness with group-based interventions compared to individually delivered interventions 

(Webster-Stratton et al., 1988, 1989). Additionally, group-based programming allows 

participants to ask questions, use peer support within the group, and use step-by-step instruction 

to learn new skills (Wymbs et al., 2016). Research has shown how group-based parenting 

programs are beneficial to improving outcomes for parents of children of all ages. 

Parents trying to manage more severe behavioral challenges may also benefit from 

additional clinical services (Ruma et al., 1996). Rotheram-Borus and colleagues (2012) discuss 

how group-based training can, unfortunately, lead to the inaccessibility of services due to 

restrictive scheduling demands and the need for one or more certified professionals to lead 

regular groups. Questions of feasibility remain and are essential to measure when instituting 

innovative parent training programs, especially when implemented with parents not 

appropriately represented within intervention studies. 

While group-based parenting programs are highly effective in engaging parents in 

supporting their children’s behavioral and social needs (Wymbs et al., 2016), the emergence of 

the COVID-19 pandemic has placed a spotlight on the need to address barriers to seeking in-

person, group-based programming. Telehealth tools and interventions allow families to access 

services that reduce barriers, such as restrictions related to COVID-19 or issues with 

transportation (Chi & Demiris, 2015). In light of the current pandemic, there is an opportunity to 

examine the feasibility of evidence-based group programs delivered in virtual formats using 

videoconferencing to facilitate content. Providing parenting programs via videoconferencing 

allows parents to continue seeking support from others with similar concerns in a way that was 

paused during the COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions (Cook et al., 2021). 

Tuning in to Kids 

Tuning in to Kids (TIK; Havighurst & Harley, 2007) is an emotion-focused intervention 

that employs EC strategies and techniques offered in group-based settings or as an online, self-

guided intervention, Tuning in to Kids Online (TIKOL). TIK aims to provide parents with tools 

and strategies to help their children learn to regulate and manage various emotions (e.g., anger, 

sadness) and situations (e.g., sibling conflict), promoting the use of the PMEP framework. The 

TIK program is delivered in a group format with certified facilitators. Several clinical and 

community trials have examined parent (e.g., changes in parenting practices) and child outcomes 

9 

 
 
 
(e.g., emotional competence, conduct problems, anxiety). Havighurst and Harley (2007) 

acknowledge that parents often use these skills when interacting with other adults but recognize 

that they are less likely to use them instinctually with young children. The theoretical basis for 

TIK suggests that children can “develop their capacity to think about emotional experiences and 

regulate their responses when their parents attend to low/moderate intensely difficult emotions 

and support, soothe and help them to learn about and regulate emotions” (p. 9; see Figure 3; 

Havighurst & Harley, 2007). 

Figure 3. Tuning in to Kids Theoretical Model adapted from Havighurst and Harley (2007).  

Social/cultura
l factors 

Tuning in to 
Kids 
Program 

Family of 
origin 
experience 
with emotion 

Parent meta-
emotion 
philosophy 

Child temperament: 
•
•
•

Neurophysiology 
Gender 
Cognition/languag
e 

•

Child emotion 
competence: 
•
•

Emotionality 
Emotion 
regulation 
Emotion 

•

Parenting: 
•
•

Attitude/beliefs 
Emotion 
coaching skills 

Parent: 
•
•

Emotion awareness 
Emotional well-
being 
Family emotion 
climate 

Child outcomes: 
Behave 
Social skills 
Academics 
Health 

•
•
•
•

One of the greatest strengths of TIK is the focus on parents’ development. Each session 

focuses on parents reflecting on various emotions, including anger, sadness, and fear. Parents are 

prompted to consider how they were socialized, the messages they were taught about each 

emotion, and how those messages may have contributed to their parenting practices (Havighurst 

& Harley, 2007). This key component of the parenting program differs from other programs that 

immediately discuss how to alter children’s behaviors and help them improve emotional 

competence. TIK is primarily parent-focused, asking parents to reflect on their beliefs about 

emotions, which positions the program to work well with Black families. As Dunbar and 

colleagues (2017) emphasized in their integrative model of racial/ethnic and emotion 

10 

 
 
 
socialization, Black parents may integrate intergenerational parenting practices that align with 

their parents’ values and the realities of oppression their children may face. In this respect, TIK 

allows for more reflection and discussion among parents to engage in more critical thinking 

around their parenting beliefs and practices while learning alternative ways to respond to 

children’s emotions. 

The program has demonstrated effectiveness in increasing parents’ self-reported EC 

beliefs and positive parenting practices (e.g., Bjørk et al., 2022; Havighurst et al., 2019; Wilson 

et al., 2014), as well as reductions of children’s anxiety symptoms (Edrissi et al., 2019), conduct 

behaviors (e.g., Havighurst et al., 2015, 2019), and children’s emotional competence (Havighurst 

et al., 2009). Fathers in Australia exposed to TIK have also reported greater satisfaction and self-

efficacy in their parenting (Wilson et al., 2014). The research supporting TIK has shown great 

effectiveness in changing parent and child outcomes; however, most of the research has been 

conducted with parents from Australia, with a few examining changes for children in Iran 

(Aghaie Meybodi et al., 2019; Edrissi et al., 2019) and China (Chan et al., 2021; Qiu & Shum, 

2022). No published studies examine TIK's effectiveness within a Black and U.S.-based sample. 

A randomized controlled efficacy trial of TIK with Australian fathers of preschoolers (N 

= 162) examined how the intervention taught fathers to shape children’s emotional competence 

and improve awareness and regulation of their emotions (Havighurst et al., 2019). Fathers in the 

intervention condition displayed more significant gains in self-reported empathy and expressive 

encouragement than control fathers six months after the intervention ended. They also reported 

fewer emotional and behavioral difficulties in their children than control fathers, indicating that 

changes in parenting from TIK were associated with improvements in children’s psychosocial 

adjustment. Teachers of children in the intervention condition also reported lower emotional and 

behavioral difficulties after six months, showing that gains made following the intervention were 

sustained after six months without the intervention (Havighurst et al., 2019). In much of the early 

TIK literature, the authors did not consistently report the parents’ racial or ethnic background, 

often opting to report on the parents’ country of origin or birth. In the results, these differing 

backgrounds were not factored into the analyses to examine differences across ethnicity or 

country of origin. 

Additional studies have examined variations of TIK in rural (Hernandez et al., 2020) and 

low-income communities (Williams & Carlson, 2023) in the United States (U.S.). Hernandez and 

11 

 
 
 
colleagues (2020) conducted a qualitative study investigating the program's implementation 

within a rural Appalachian community in the U.S. They found that some parents initially 

questioned how TIK aligned with their original parenting philosophies at study entry. Those 

parents also indicated that completing the program helped them reframe some parenting beliefs 

and were willing to adopt many of the strategies from the training (Hernandez et al., 2020). A 

second pilot study examined parent and child outcomes of the online adaptation, TIKOL, in a 

sample of low-income Head Start parents (8 White parents and 1 Black parent; Williams & 

Carlson, 2023). Of the sample, Parent outcomes indicated improved self-reported EC beliefs and 

reduced distressing reactions to their child’s negative emotions. TIKOL did not successfully 

reduce ED beliefs in parents, suggesting that examining ED beliefs and practices may be difficult 

when parenting programs are self-guided without the opportunity to discuss how it may or may 

not align with parents’ beliefs. Given the limited information and research on the impact of TIK 

in the U.S., additional research should evaluate these programs' fidelity, effectiveness, and 

acceptability with a more diverse sample.  

Bowen and colleagues (2009) discuss the importance of assessing how well a treatment 

can be used for different demographic subgroups, including assessing acceptability and retaining 

efficacy (e.g., the ability to provide the intended result). These two points align with the current 

study implementation to determine if the TIK content is acceptable for a new demographic 

subsample (i.e., Black, U.S.-based parents) and if the intended effects of changing parenting 

behaviors and beliefs within this new sample. Bowen and colleagues (2009) recommend 

conducting a pre-post, small-scale, randomized-controlled trial (RCT) to help further support the 

use of this intervention in heterogeneous parent samples. 

Pilot Studies 

Small pilot studies prepare more extensive research to examine protocols, data 

measurements, and recruitment strategies (see Hassan et al., 2006). They are necessary for 

developing and testing interventions within applied settings. Sheridan (2014) recommends a ten-

step process in the intervention research trajectory (see Table 1). After identifying an issue (e.g., 

changing parental emotion socialization practices) and potential strategies to address the issue 

(i.e., EC skills), Sheridan (2014) emphasizes the need to examine an intervention to assess the 

feasibility of carrying out the program in a particular setting. The TIK program has been piloted 

and examined in several contexts; however, the program's research within the U.S. is limited to 

12 

 
 
 
 
one qualitative study (Hernandez et al., 2020) and a small pilot of TIKOL (Williams & Carlson, 

2023). Further research is needed to explore the intervention with a different sample of 

participants.  

Table 1. Ten Steps in Intervention Research Trajectory adapted from Sheridan (2014) 

Step 

Description 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Identify an issue or problem 

Create strategies 

Pilot/assess feasibility 

Evaluate with intensity/precision; small sample 

Replicate and extend with a new sample, problem, context 

Develop theory 

Test on a larger scale 

Assess mechanisms of change (theory) 

Investigate influential contextual/situation variables 

10 

Test effectiveness on large scale 

Within the literature, only one study has examined the use of TIK within a U.S.-based 

sample (Hernandez et al., 2020), demonstrating the need to explore further parent and child 

outcomes, acceptability, and overall feasibility for parents in the U.S., especially within a 

minoritized and underrepresented population. Kazdin (2021) emphasizes the importance of 

examining an intervention’s efficacy (i.e., the impact of an intervention under controlled 

conditions) in pilot research before examining its effectiveness (i.e., the extent to which 

treatment works in a clinical setting under normal circumstances). Randomization within an 

efficacy trial can help to rule out internal threats to validity and reduce the chance of observing 

changes in characteristically different groups (APA, 2002). To that end, a small-scale pilot study 

following Sheridan’s (2014) and Bowen’s (2009) recommendations to conduct a pilot study 

assessing TIK's fidelity, acceptability, and effectiveness for Black parents is appropriate and 

needed in the literature. 

The Current Study 

This study examined preliminary outcomes of parent engagement, treatment efficacy, and 

acceptability of Tuning in to Kids delivered virtually using a videoconferencing platform. This 

13 

 
 
 
  
 
pre-post pilot RCT employed a sequential-explanatory design to explore quantitative changes in 

the parent (e.g., parenting practices, emotion regulation) and child (e.g., social-emotional 

competence) outcomes after exposure to the intervention. Rather than adapting the intervention, 

qualitative data explored parent perceptions of the intervention and its alignment with parent 

values. This study supports ongoing efforts to incorporate culturally responsive adaptations in 

future research. Pilot studies examine research protocols and experimental methods in 

preparation for a large-scale main trial (Hassan et al., 2006; In, 2017). The study contributes to 

the literature in three ways. It extends the current TIK literature by (a) examining the impact of 

this emotion-focused intervention within a small sample (N = 21) of U.S.-based Black parents, 

(b) comparing the effects of TIK with a waitlist control group (WLC), and (c) collecting 

qualitative evidence of this sample of Black parents’ experiences receiving the intervention. 

Qualitative interviews explored Black parents’ perceptions of the program’s alignment with their 

parenting philosophies. Parents were randomly assigned to receive the trained facilitator TIK or a 

WLC group. This study also employed a mixed methods design to extend the current emotion 

socialization intervention literature to a diverse population. 

14 

 
 
 
CHAPTER 2 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

Social-emotional research has focused on how most children are socialized; however, 

many of these studies focused on the experiences and outcomes of White families (e.g., Graves 

et al., 2021; McLoyd, 1990; Steed & Kranski, 2020). The proposed study explores a variety of 

outcomes associated with an emotion-focused intervention to promote supportive parenting 

practices for Black parents and caregivers. This literature review addresses (a) the role of parents 

in promoting and developing children’s emotion socialization skills, (b) literature examining 

different interpretations of Black parents’ emotion socialization practices, (c) the benefits of 

group-based parenting programs, (d) the utility of emotion-focused interventions in promoting 

emotional competence in young children, (e) components to evaluate treatment success, (f) 

Tuning in to Kids (TIK) program and research, and (g) research questions and hypotheses. These 

sections, in combination, provide the support and rationale for this specific study and the 

contribution that its findings have on the current emotion socialization and TIK literature base. 

Role of Parents in Children’s Emotion Socialization 

As a child’s first teacher, parents play an integral role in their children’s social-emotional 

development. Children learn about their emotions from observing the people around them from 

infancy through adulthood (Denham et al., 2015). Parents do not always consciously focus on the 

impact of their emotion socialization practices (e.g., encouraging outward expressions of 

emotion); however, their actions shape how children develop and interact with their 

environments (Denham et al., 2015; Eisenberg, Spinrad, et al., 1998).  

Familial Impact of Children’s Emotion Regulation 

Research has demonstrated how unsupportive parenting practices adversely impact young 

children’s emotion regulation and other internalizing and externalizing symptoms (Breaux et al., 

2022; England-Mason & Gonzalez, 2020; Havighurst & Kehoe, 2017; Silk et al., 2006). Morris 

et al. (2017) reviewed the literature examining the association between parenting influence (i.e., 

practices and parent-child relationships) and children’s emotion regulation. Their review 

highlighted how positive parental affect in the home and emotional support could positively 

influence and promote behaviors in children reflecting adaptive emotion regulation skills. They 

also discuss how parental emotion regulation is associated with responsive parenting, suggesting 

that improvements in parents’ emotion regulation can make parents more responsive to 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
children’s emotions (Crandall et al., 2015; Morris et al., 2017). Morris and colleagues’ (2017) 

review did not account for or highlight the impact of racial or cultural differences. 

Garner (2006) examined how parenting variables (i.e., social approval, reward, praise of 

child) and emotion socialization practices (e.g., comforting the child, matching emotion, 

distracting) by African American mothers were associated with children’s observed prosocial 

behaviors. In a sample of 70 African American preschoolers and their mothers, prosocial-related 

behaviors were predictive of children’s constructive emotion regulation. Additionally, the study 

demonstrated that mothers who matched their child’s emotions had superior skills in interpreting 

their children’s emotional cues and were more likely to be positively responsive (Garner, 2006).  

Parental Emotion Regulation 

Research suggests that a parent’s ability to regulate and effectively express emotions is 

associated with emotion understanding in children (Bariola et al., 2011). Dix (1991), for 

example, examined how parents’ poor awareness of their emotions can negatively impact 

parenting outcomes. Child outcomes are not as unfavorable if parents are unaware of how their 

reactions and emotions directly impact their children (Dix, 1991).  

Several studies have been conducted to understand the link between parental emotion 

regulation (and expression) and children’s emotional competence. Morris et al. (2007) suggest 

that a child’s exposure to a wide range of emotions and emotion regulation strategies will give 

way to a child’s greater knowledge of appropriate and effective ways to regulate their emotions 

in the future. Bariola and colleagues (2011) reviewed the literature to examine parent and child 

social functioning with emotion regulation and expression. Their review examined 29 studies 

that directly investigated parental and child emotion regulation. Within those 29 studies, only 

two explored parental emotion regulation's impact on children’s (aged 4-7 years) emotion 

regulation (Garber et al., 1991; Silk et al., 2006). Silk et al. (2006) found that children with 

depressed mothers were more likely to use “maladaptive” emotion regulation strategies (i.e., 

passively waiting for attention) than children without depressed mothers (27% Black) when 

induced with stress. Garber and colleagues (1991) presented mothers and children with vignettes 

to induce sadness and asked them to report which strategies they would use in the presented 

situations. Depressed mothers and their children (aged 8-13 years) reported using poorer emotion 

regulation strategies than non-depressed mothers and their children. These two studies point to a 

significant gap in the literature, suggesting that more research should investigate the association 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
between parental and child emotion regulation. While Bariola and colleagues (2011) examined 

29 studies connecting parental emotion regulation to children’s competence, the racial makeup of 

the included studies is unclear, limiting our ability to understand the impact of parental emotion 

regulation in Black families. 

Parenting Practices 

An examination of inconsistent parenting highlights its relationship to children’s 

maladjustment (Mirabile, 2014). Mirabile (2014) found that parents (12.3% African American) 

generally are consistent in their socialization practices, presenting a unique opportunity to 

present parents with beneficial skills to use in everyday interactions with children. One exception 

was the positive association between negatively expressive parents and their punitive responses 

to children’s negative emotions. This finding suggests that emotionally negative parents may be 

more likely to respond negatively to their children’s negative emotions, providing a rationale to 

support programming to support parents’ positive emotionality (Eisenberg et al., 2001; Mirabile, 

2014). The lack of disaggregated data hinders the interpretation from understanding the 

experiences of 12.3% of African American parents. 

Zinsser and colleagues (2021) examined emotion-focused parenting practices and their 

relation to children’s emotional skills. In a meta-analysis of 24 articles, Zinsser et al. (2021) 

separated their analyses by the measures of emotion-related practices (i.e., modeling, responding, 

and instructing about emotions) and children’s emotion skills (i.e., emotion knowledge, emotion 

expression, and emotion regulation). The studies demonstrated that parental instruction of 

emotions was associated with children’s emotion knowledge, followed by the link between 

parents’ responses to emotions and children’s emotion knowledge. While these findings were 

significant, they produced small effects, suggesting an opportunity to strengthen the 

measurement of emotion socialization. The meta-analysis findings are essential for future 

research in parental emotion socialization in providing an overview of the relationship between 

parents’ direct teaching of emotion and children’s subsequent emotion skills. However, it is 

unclear how generalizable the findings are to minoritized populations, as the authors provided 

racial demographic data with the percentage of White participants in each study (ranging from 5-

100%; Zinsser et al., 2021).  

Zimmer-Gembeck and colleagues (2022) conducted a more recent meta-analytic review 

of 53 studies examining the association of parental emotion regulation with parenting behavior 

17 

 
 
 
and children’s emotion regulation and behavior. Within the 53 studies, 12 meta-analyses were 

conducted to summarize parent emotion regulation with parenting behaviors and child outcomes 

in emotion regulation and behavior (i.e., internalizing and externalizing). One finding focused on 

parent difficulties with emotion regulation and positive and negative parenting behaviors. 

Zimmer-Gembeck and colleagues (2022) found a significant summary effect size (r = .18) 

between parents’ emotion regulation skills and positive parenting behaviors (e.g., cognitive 

reappraisal) and a significant effect size (r = -.15) with negative parenting behaviors (e.g., 

minimizing reactions). These separate meta-analyses indicate that parents with more emotion 

regulation skills were more likely to use positive parenting practices and less likely to use 

negative ones. The meta-analyses also indicated the inverse. Parents reporting greater difficulties 

with emotion regulation were lower in positive parenting practices (r = -.16) and higher in 

negative parenting practices (r = .30; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2022). The meta-analyses suggest 

that the included articles from the U.S. represented a wide range of families from diverse 

sociocultural backgrounds; however, approximately 36% of the included articles had primarily 

White participants without disaggregated results by race/ethnicity (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 

2022), making it challenging to decipher invariance across racial or ethnic groups. 

Impact on Child Outcomes 

Zimmer-Gembeck and colleagues’ (2022) meta-analyses also included relations between 

parental emotion regulation and measures of child adjustment. Four of the 53 studies 

demonstrated that parents with higher emotion regulation skills had children with fewer 

internalizing symptoms (r = -.19) and externalizing behaviors (r = -.06; from five studies). Ten 

studies investigated the association between parental and child emotion regulation, and six 

studies measured children’s difficulties with emotion regulation. Parents with better emotion 

regulation skills had children with higher regulatory skills (r = .21); however, there was no 

association of parental emotion regulation with children’s difficulties with emotion regulation. 

The inverse showed that parents experiencing difficulties with emotion regulation were 

associated with children having more internalizing symptoms (r = .22), especially for preschool-

aged children (age 2 – 6; r = .39) compared to older children and adolescents (6 years and older; 

r = .22). Unsurprisingly, parental difficulties with emotion regulation were also associated with 

children having more externalizing behaviors (r = .18) and poor emotion regulation skills (r = -

18 

 
 
 
 
.17). These findings support the need for a greater focus on improving parental emotion 

regulation to improve child outcomes (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2022). 

Emotion Socialization in Black Families 

Much of the literature on children’s social-emotional development has focused on the 

experiences and outcomes of White families (e.g., McLoyd, 1990). Specifically, many 

intervention studies have predominantly White samples and often do not disaggregate the results, 

making it difficult to understand the impact on non-White families. When discussing emotion 

socialization in Black and African American families, one must consider the influence of culture 

on the value placed on emotional expression (McLoyd et al., 2019). Black families may socialize 

their children’s emotions in preparation for racial discrimination and bias they experience. In that 

regard, Black parents are more likely to minimize outward displays of negative emotions than 

their White counterparts (Nelson, Leerkes, et al., 2012).  

In 2015, Dunbar and colleagues examined how racial and emotion socialization profiles 

determined young adults’ emotional adaptation. In a sample of African American young adults 

(70% women), they found that mothers who demonstrated cultural-supportive (i.e., supportive 

responses to negative emotions and high culturally specific socialization) or moderate bias 

preparation (i.e., moderate levels of culturally specific socialization) profiles had children with 

lower levels of depression in young adulthood. While this sample is not within an early 

childhood context, these results show how important parental socialization of emotions and 

preparation for bias and culture values can positively impact Black children later in life.  

Dunbar and colleagues (2022) also specifically examined the impact of Black parents’ 

suppression of children’s negative emotions paired with intentional preparation for bias (i.e., 

racial socialization) on children’s physiological reactions, internalizing, and externalizing 

problems for five and six-year-olds. The research supports Dunbar and colleagues’ (2017) 

integrative model, which proposed that Black parents’ negative emotion suppression can be used 

to prepare children for racial bias. Children in the 2022 study exhibited reduced internalizing 

symptoms when parents paired suppression of negative emotions with preparation for bias. 

However, children whose parents only suppressed their negative emotions without the context of 

preparing for racial bias demonstrated increased externalizing behaviors (Dunbar et al., 2022). 

These data indicate the positive effects of the intersection of emotion socialization and racial 

socialization for Black parents and their children.  

19 

 
 
 
Parental Beliefs of Emotion 

While some Black parents may ignore or dismiss some of their children’s negative 

emotions, research has indicated that Black children are less likely to view dismissive parenting 

practices as harmful than their White peers (Brophy-Herb et al., 2016; Leerkes et al., 2014). 

Additionally, research has shown that African Americans’ outward encouragement of emotional 

expression is negatively associated with children’s academic success (Nelson et al., 2013), 

potentially indicating how Black parents may need to adapt their parenting practices according to 

what would be appropriate in a given context. Black mothers are less likely to provide supportive 

responses to their child’s negative emotions because they do not believe that they are acceptable 

for their children (ages 3 to 5 years) and will be subject to adverse consequences in public 

settings, especially for boys (e.g., at school; Nelson et al., 2012). Emotion socialization research 

should consider findings within the family’s context of the complexities of rearing Black 

children, including managing the perceptions of others’ reactions to their emotions and 

behaviors. 

Emotion Regulation and Coaching as Predictors of Children’s Internalizing Symptoms 

Bowie and colleagues (2013) examined how parents' understanding of their emotion 

regulation patterns influences how they socialize their children's emotions. The researchers 

provide a framework that acknowledges how most research in the area was conducted with 

European American families. Bowie et al. (2013) asked parents (N = 99) from three cultural 

groups – African American, European American, and Multiracial – to reflect retrospectively to 

understand how their upbringing influences current parenting practices (e.g., "What was your 

experience of sadness when you were growing up?" and "What do you think you are trying to 

teach your child about anger?"). In this study with parents and young children (aged 7 to 9), the 

researchers found that African American mothers who endorsed higher anger coaching (i.e., 

working through angry emotions) reported lower anxiety (r = -.33) and fewer depressive (r = -

.49) symptoms in their children. In this study, Bowie and colleagues (2013) identified the 

importance of EC in reducing symptoms of anxiety and depression in African American mothers 

and their children. The researchers acknowledged the need for African American mothers to 

provide their children with techniques to help calm themselves when faced with emotional 

provocation in public settings. 

20 

 
 
 
 
Implications of Parental Emotion Dysregulation  

Lugo-Candelas and colleagues (2016) examined parental emotion socialization and 

mental health in undergraduate young adults (22.4% African American/Black; i.e., "emerging 

adults") by collecting retrospective data to report how their parents responded to negative affect. 

The researchers found that reported practices by fathers did not differ across ethnic groups; 

however, practices by mothers differed across the four ethnic groups. Specifically, unsupportive 

practices (e.g., distressing and dismissing reactions) from mothers were associated with higher 

levels of mental health symptoms (e.g., anxiety, stress) for both Black (b = 1.50) and White (b = 

1.78) emerging adults. This data supports the need to examine EC in early childhood, as they 

directly affect adulthood. 

Labella (2018) explored empirical research on parental emotion socialization in Black 

families. Overall, they discovered that the celebration and restriction of children's emotions 

coincide closely with Black families, which differs from White, middle-class samples. The 

picture painted in this systematic review provides a complex picture of how racial socialization 

and differing beliefs around emotion influence parenting practices. Many of the included studies 

presented results relevant to socialization in early childhood. Some studies indicated that 

emotion talk was more prevalent in infancy (e.g., Garrett-Peters et al., 2011) and that suppressive 

responses to emotion were more prominent for elementary-age children (e.g., Nelson et al., 

2012), suggesting that more research is needed to examine the role of emotion socialization for 

ages two to six. Additional intervention research on emotion socialization practices in early 

childhood within Black families is needed to understand how clinicians and mental health 

professionals can support families. 

Groups Supporting Black Parents 

One method of supporting Black families in nurturing their children’s social-emotional 

competence is group-based parenting programs. The Mommy and Me Play Intervention is a 

strengths-based program to support preschoolers’ social-emotional competence through play 

with their mothers (Wright, 2015). In a sample of predominantly African American mothers 

(95%) enrolled in Head Start programs, the researcher examined the play intervention’s impact 

on children’s social-emotional competence and mother-child interactions. Mothers were paired 

with a mother-child dyad (i.e., two mothers and two children) in a structured play group, where 

each parent was assigned to either the Helper or Helpee group. Helpers were those with higher 

21 

 
 
 
 
skills in pre-intervention, and Helpees were less skilled in pre-intervention. Mothers were not 

aware of their assigned condition during the study. Mother-child dyads were instructed to “Help 

your children play together and see what you can learn from watching and playing with each 

other.” Following the intervention, Wright (2015) and their research team observed that mothers 

assigned to the Helpees group demonstrated positive changes in responsivity and warmth toward 

their child. Overall, Helpees (i.e., less-skilled mothers at baseline) made the most significant 

gains after the intervention, suggesting the benefit of a collaborative peer model. 

Additionally, children with Helpee mothers demonstrated greater improvements in 

ratings of anger, aggression, and overall prosocial behaviors (Wright, 2015). Teachers reported 

that children’s social competence improved following participation in the program. Child 

outcomes of reduced anger and aggression were impacted by the participating Helper mothers’ 

ability to serve as positive models to their peers. The results of this study support the need for 

community-based interventions to support children’s social-emotional development and parents’ 

parenting skills. These data also contribute to the literature on the benefits of social support and 

peer models in group programs (Wright, 2015). 

Another program developed to support Black parents and their children is the Black 

Parenting Strengths and Strategies (BPSS) Program (Coard et al., 2007). BPSS was adapted from 

the Parenting the Strong-Willed Child (PSWC; Forehand & Long, 2002), an evidence-based 

intervention developed to improve parent-child relationships, teach parents behavior 

management, and improve children’s behaviors. BPSS uses culturally specific content related to 

racial socialization and the core of the PSWC to support Black parents. In a pilot of Black 

primary caregivers of 5- and 6-year-olds (N = 38), Coard and colleagues (2007) examined 

outcomes related to parenting practices, children’s psychosocial functioning, and parents’ 

satisfaction and perceptions of the intervention. Parents were highly satisfied with the program, 

and 100% indicated they would recommend it to a friend. One parent linked their satisfaction 

with the program to their ability to teach their child how to communicate with others outside the 

home. Parents in the BPSS group reported significant increases in positive parenting practices 

and decreased harsh discipline compared to parents in the control group. Parents also reported 

significant decreases in their child’s problem behaviors compared to parents in the control group, 

who reported increases in their child’s externalizing behavior (Coard et al., 2007). These findings 

suggest that parenting programs tailored to cultural contexts successfully support minoritized 

22 

 
 
 
 
parents. While important, this study did not specifically examine parenting practices related to 

emotion socialization, suggesting future research's importance in examining these practices 

within a cultural context.  

Group-Based Parenting Programs 

While the parenting programs for Black families are limited, substantial evidence 

supports the benefits of group-based parenting programs. Kane and colleagues (2007) conducted 

a meta-ethnography (N = 4 articles) to examine parents’ experiences in parenting programs to 

provide vital information pertinent to practitioners delivering value-oriented interventions. The 

study indicated that parents lacked control regarding their ability to manage their children’s 

behaviors. After their respective parenting programs, parents reported feeling less guilt and 

improved confidence in using positive parenting strategies. Expressly, parents indicated shared 

acceptance and support from their group, improving their ability to cope when confronted with 

their child’s behaviors. Kane et al. (2007) discussed how these findings provide vital factors that 

should be addressed in engaging parents in parenting groups, contributing positively to parent-

child wellbeing. The four articles in the meta-ethnography identify key aspects necessary for 

parenting programs to support parents and their children’s well-being (see Figure 4; Kane et al., 

2007).  

Emotion Coaching and Parenting Programs 

Effects of Emotion Coaching on Child Outcomes  

Many early EC investigators explored how parenting practices and parental emotional 

expressiveness relate to children with externalizing behaviors, such as aggression (Lunkenheimer 

et al., 2007; Ramsden & Hubbard, 2002). Ramsden and Hubbard (2002) instructed parents and 

teachers to complete rating scales of the respective child's aggression and emotion regulation. 

Interviews with mothers (N = 120; 23.6% African American) were coded to distinguish the 

various aspects of EC (i.e., awareness, acceptance, and instruction). The results did not indicate 

significant changes in the child's aggression with EC practices; however, they showed that higher 

levels of negative family emotion expression and less maternal acceptance of child emotion are 

related to weaker emotion regulation in fourth graders (r = -.179). Higher levels of acceptance of 

23 

 
 
 
 
emotion – a component of EC – were positively correlated with emotion regulation (r = .180; 

Ramsden & Hubbard, 2002). 

Figure 4. Addressing parents' needs and promoting parent-child well-being adapted from 
Kane et al. (2007). 

Similarly, Lunkenheimer et al. (2007) observed how EC and ED practices affect 

discussions of past emotional events with young adolescents (N = 87; 23% African American). 

They found that using ED practices was a risk factor for children's social-emotional outcomes. 

When parents exhibited both EC and ED behaviors during the discussion, children experienced 

reduced internalizing problems and emotional lability (Lunkenheimer et al., 2007), suggesting 

that ED behaviors can be functional when paired with an EC parenting philosophy.  

More recent studies have investigated the impact of EC on children's externalizing and 

internalizing behaviors. Many researchers began to investigate EC practices by parents in 

explorational studies through parent interviews (Dunsmore et al., 2013; Ellis et al., 2014). 

Dunsmore et al. (2013) invited parents and children (N = 72; 11% African American) to 

complete semi-structured interviews and complete questionnaires about parents' emotion-related 

beliefs and their child's (7-14 years) emotion regulation. Interviews were conducted to measure 

symptoms of internalizing behaviors as well. The results indicate that when children were high in 

emotion lability, the use of EC from the mother was associated with fewer child externalizing 

symptoms (β = -.40) and reduced conduct problems from the child's self-report (β = -.08). 

24 

 
 
 
 
Children with lower emotion lability had more externalizing symptoms (β = .24) when mothers 

used EC behaviors. Dunsmore and colleagues (2013) also found that children's emotional 

regulation was associated with greater self-reported internalizing symptoms (r = .43). An indirect 

association existed between mothers' EC and their child's emotion regulation (r = .26). Because 

EC is meant to make children aware of and accept their emotions, a mediating effect emerged 

through emotion regulation to a child's ability and willingness to identify internalizing 

symptoms. In this study, only 11% of participants identified as African American, limiting the 

generalizability of outcomes with a small subsample (Dunsmore et al., 2013). 

Use of Emotion Coaching in At-Risk Families 

Another explorational study examined the connection between family risk factors, EC 

practices, and emotion regulation in preschool children. Ellis et al. (2014) invited mothers of 

preschool-aged children (N = 74; 2.4% Black) to participate in a study, completing 

questionnaires regarding emotion regulation and family expressiveness. Mothers spoke with their 

children about a local memory from the previous few days when the child was upset. The 

conversations were recorded and coded later to determine the parent's EC practices and language. 

The study findings aggregated across participating families indicated higher levels of risk (i.e., 

economic disadvantage, family stress, and maltreatment) to be associated with reduced EC 

strategies (r = -.27) and reduced emotion regulation for the children (r = -.30; Ellis et al., 2014). 

While these findings support that EC is associated with children's emotion regulation and 

internalizing and externalizing behaviors, they were correlational and conducted with a 

predominantly White (89%) subsample. The small subsample of Black parents (2.4%) 

contributes nominally to the overall participant sample, supporting a further examination of the 

use of EC in Black families (Ellis et al., 2014).  

The Incredible Years Parent Training Program 

Several other evidence-based classroom and parent education interventions have 

improved young children’s social-emotional competence (Barton et al., 2014). One example is 

the Incredible Years (IY) Parent Training Program (Webster-Stratton, 2006), which provides 

weekly training sessions for parents to learn how to utilize and incorporate strategies to improve 

their children's communication skills, emotion regulation, and self-control. As an early 

intervention, research for IY has focused on promoting social competence, reducing conduct 

behavior problems, and decreasing internalizing symptoms in young children (Webster-Stratton 

25 

 
 
 
 
& Bywater, 2019). IY employs an EC component to help parents teach children how to regulate 

their emotions better. The IY Parent Training Program has also been examined as a preventative 

program for children in underrepresented groups and those enrolled in Head Start programs 

(Leijten et al., 2017). The IY Program has strong evidence for its impact on children’s skill 

development. It is also easy to implement as intended with high rates of parent acceptability 

(e.g., Stewart & Carlson, 2010).  

The group-based IY Parenting program has also demonstrated success for Black and 

other minoritized parents (Brotman et al., 2003). Brotman and colleagues (2003) examined 

changes in parent responsiveness, use of positive parenting practices, and child conduct behavior 

problems in a sample of 30 (67% African American) low-income preschoolers. Parents who 

received IY increased responsiveness to their children and greater use of positive parenting 

practices. Children in the intervention group exhibited fewer parent-reported externalizing 

behaviors than those in the control group. Attendance for participating parents averaged 55% of 

sessions attended (approximately 28 out of 50 sessions). Parent satisfaction was high for those 

who completed at least 10% of the intervention. Specifically, parents indicated that the 

videotapes and group discussions were the most helpful and would recommend the program to a 

friend (Brotman et al., 2003). 

Triple P Parenting Program 

The Triple P Parenting Program effectively reduces child behavior problems, improves 

parent-child relationships, and equips parents with skills to manage their child’s behavior. 

Salmon and colleagues (2014) examined differential outcomes between parents who received 

Group Triple P (GTP; n = 24) and those who received Emotion Enhanced Triple P (EETP; n = 

19). Results of the study demonstrated a significant group effect favoring parents in the EETP 

group, specifically in parents’ increased use of EC strategies (d = 1.03) and their children’s use 

of emotion labels (d = .70) compared to parents in the GTP group. On the other hand, GTP 

parents reported fewer disruptive child behaviors than parents in the EETP group. No significant 

differences existed in parent-reported satisfaction with the interventions (Salmon et al., 2014). 

Most families from this study were of New Zealand European descent, limiting the 

generalizability to Black parents. 

One Triple P study examined African American fathers’ perceptions of how well 

intervention adaptations could link to positive child outcomes (Kohl & Seay, 2015). In a sample 

26 

 
 
 
 
of 29 African American fathers, the researchers conducted brief focus groups to understand if the 

program's content was appropriate for African American fathers. The fathers generally indicated 

that the lack of African Americans and fathers in the DVD materials limited their ability to relate 

to the content. They also recognized how programs claim to support parents but often only 

highlight women as the primary emotional caregivers for young children. On the other hand, 

some fathers appreciated the content that could be generalized to parents of different 

backgrounds (Kohl & Seay, 2015). These qualitative findings support the need to examine 

parenting programs' outcomes while establishing the program’s social validity for African 

American parents, especially fathers. 

1-2-3 Magic Parenting Program 

As the EC literature continued to develop, researchers integrated the EC philosophy into 

existing parenting programs, such as the 1-2-3 Magic Parenting Program. Porzig-Drummond et 

al. (2014) compared two parenting programs, the 1-2-3 Magic Parenting Program (n = 31), an 

adapted EC program (n = 31), and a control group (n = 30), to examine the effects on child 

conduct behaviors. The 1-2-3 Magic Parenting Program is a behavioral program utilizing operant 

learning theory, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and social learning theory components. Both 

interventions demonstrated reductions in child disruptive behaviors and reduced parental stress. 

However, the adapted EC program indicated a significant reduction in ED parenting practices at 

post-intervention, 3-month, and two-year follow-ups. On the other hand, the intervention did not 

increase EC practices between pre- and post-intervention (Porzig-Drummond et al., 2014).  

While the 1-2-3 Magic Parenting Program showed promising effects for reducing ED 

practices and child conduct behaviors, the integration of EC with the original 1-2-3 Magic 

program limits the researchers' ability to attribute changes in parenting practices to EC only. The 

results indicate that the effects could result from an interaction between the base program and the 

EC components. Compared with other group parenting programs, 1-2-3 Magic is one of the 

shortest to complete, with only three two-hour group sessions (Porzig-Drummond et al., 2014). 

Additionally, the Magic 1-2-3 program was examined in a sample of parents living in Sydney, 

Australia, and the researchers did not report the racial/ethnic demographics of the participating 

parents. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
Parent-Child Interaction Therapy with Emotion Coaching 

Another commonly used parenting technique is Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT), 

an evidence-based parenting intervention initially developed for children with oppositional 

defiant disorders and conduct disorders. Chronis-Tuscano et al. (2016) investigated the 

effectiveness of a PCIT intervention with an added EC component (PCIT-ECo) to improve 

children’s emotion recognition and regulation skills. When piloted with a small group of families 

(N = 9; 1 African American child), parents exposed to PCIT-ECo displayed more positive 

parenting practices during posttreatment observations. In addition to parental practice changes, 

children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) displayed improved emotion 

regulation. Specifically, the one African American parent-child dyad improved the child’s 

emotion regulation and positive parenting practices from direct observation. However, parent 

reports suggest that the child’s internalizing and externalizing behaviors increased between pre-

intervention and the 1-month follow-up. The parent was also observed using less negative talk 

post-intervention, but the effects were not lasting, as shown by an increase at the follow-up 

(Chronis-Tuscano et al., 2016). In addition to supported effectiveness, researchers found high 

satisfaction regarding treatment acceptability from participating parents but did not examine 

treatment integrity. 

Evidence-based parenting programs have thoroughly examined parental emotion 

socialization in predominantly White, middle-class families, and they have successfully 

improved children’s social competence and reduced challenging behaviors. The current 

intervention literature highlights the importance of examining changes in children's emotion 

regulation; however, recent findings suggest a link between children’s emotion regulation and 

their parents (e.g., Bariola et al., 2011). More research is needed to examine parental changes in 

emotion regulation after exposure to parenting programs. 

Evaluating Treatment Success 

Evidence suggests that parental emotion socialization programs change parenting 

practices and child-related outcomes. We must examine treatment success in several ways to 

understand how well a program addresses these issues. Treatment evaluation can help to 

ascertain how feasible and effective interventions are for whom and under what conditions. 

Intervention success can be measured by examining treatment integrity, effectiveness, and 

acceptability (Brown-Chidsey et al., 2008). Integrity (or fidelity) assesses how well an 

28 

 
 
 
 
intervention is carried out as intended, which can inform the effectiveness of the intervention 

(Brown-Chidsey et al., 2008; Sanetti & Kratochwill, 2005; Sanetti et al., 2021). Adhering to the 

intervention protocol lets us know if changes post-intervention were due to the intervention or 

other confounding variables. Treatment acceptability is related to how appropriate, unintrusive, 

and effective the intervention is perceived by the target audience (e.g., parents). Consumer 

satisfaction may be poor if a program is not viewed as effective for a given population. 

Additionally, the acceptability of treatment can be related to how likely a consumer would 

recommend the treatment to others (e.g., social validity; Wolf, 1978).  

Witt and Elliott (1985) developed a model that illustrates the reciprocal relationship 

between treatment integrity, effectiveness, and acceptability. They posit that treatment 

effectiveness should always be considered within integrity and acceptability (Witt & Elliott, 

1985). Regarding treatment acceptability, Proctor and colleagues (2011) suggest that regardless 

of reported effectiveness, treatment acceptability can be influenced by many factors that could 

change along the course of the intervention. Recent research in parenting programs targeting 

children’s social-emotional competence has examined treatment integrity, effectiveness, and 

acceptability (e.g., Thomson & Carlson, 2017), with some evaluations covering all three 

components in Black families (Brotman et al., 2003; Kohl & Seay, 2015). However, more 

research is needed to examine treatment success with minoritized populations. 

Tuning in to Kids 

While many parenting programs have components of emotion-focused content, more 

research is needed on programs that directly target parental emotion socialization in early 

childhood through prioritizing parents’ understanding of their own emotions. TIK is a suite of 

programs developed to support the needs of parents/caregivers from early childhood to 

adolescence (Havighurst & Harley, 2007). TIK aims to improve parenting, strengthen the parent-

child relationship, and improve children’s emotional competence and behavior. TIK differs from 

the previously mentioned studies because the goal is not only to change children’s emotional 

competence. The TIK suite aims to help parents understand their emotions and their impact on 

their children. TIK was developed to be delivered in a group format, with one or two certified 

facilitators leading groups of 8 to 12. Intervention facilitators must complete a three half-day 

training with the program developers and are mental health, child development, or intervention 

specialists. In the group setting, the activities of the program consist of (a) psychoeducation, (b) 

29 

 
 
 
 
incidental learning, (c) role-playing, (d) DVD and video materials, (e) handouts, and (f) take-

home activities, which all work together to diversify the teaching of the program and 

accommodate to fit the needs of different parenting and learning styles (Havighurst & Harley, 

2007). Throughout the program, parents seek guidance from the trained facilitators and peers.  

Fidelity and Acceptability of TIK 

Havighurst and Harley (2007) emphasize the importance of adhering to intervention 

fidelity and assessing intervention engagement from parents. Several TIK efficacy and 

community trials have examined participant attendance to measure integrity. On average, TIK 

literature shows that approximately 80% of parents attended five or more of the six sessions 

(e.g., Havighurst et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2014, 2016). In addition to participant engagement, a 

fidelity checklist is provided for each session of TIK, highlighting core content for each topic. 

Intervention fidelity rated by trained facilitators ranged from 78% to 100% (Aghaie Meybodi et 

al., 2019; Duncombe et al., 2016; Edrissi et al., 2019; Havighurst et al., 2010, 2013, 2015, 2019; 

Wilson et al., 2012, 2016). 

Research Base of TIK 

TIK has been examined as a program to promote positive parenting practices and reduce 

children’s conduct behaviors (e.g., Aghaie Meybodi et al., 2019; Havighurst et al., 2004) and 

internalizing symptoms (i.e., anxiety; Edrissi et al., 2019). TIK has reduced parent-reported ED 

beliefs and practices and increased EC beliefs (see Table 2). Few studies have examined 

significant improvements in children’s emotional knowledge post-intervention (Havighurst et al., 

2009). In addition to improving parental practices, parents have reported increased self-reported 

empathy compared to parents in control groups (Havighurst et al., 2013, 2015, 2019; Wilson et 

al., 2016) and greater satisfaction and efficacy in parenting (Wilson et al., 2014). In recent years, 

researchers in China (Chan et al., 2021; Qiu & Shum, 2022) and Norway (Bjørk et al., 2022) 

examined the efficacy of a culturally adapted TIK for mothers of preschoolers, demonstrating 

that participation in the program was associated with increased parental involvement and use of 

EC and encouragement in response to their children’s emotions. No prior examinations of TIK 

have examined the delivery of the intervention virtually via videoconferencing

30 

 
 
 
Table 2. Study Characteristics, Outcomes, and Intervention Fidelity of Group-Based Tuning in to Kids   

Study  

Sample 

Parent Outcomes 

Child Outcomes 

Fidelity  

Attendance 

Acceptability 

Havighurst et al. 

Low to 

Improvements in 

Significant reductions in 

N/A 

N/A 

(2004) 

middle-class 

EE and EFR; 

child problem behaviors  

regions in 

reductions in MR 

Melbourne, 

and PR.  

AU 

88% found 

TIK “very 

useful” 

Havighurst et al. 

Low to 

Increased EC and 

Significant improvement 

N/A 

78% attended ≥ 

N/A 

(2009) 

middle-class 

reduction of ED  

in child behavior and 

5 sessions 

regions in 

Melbourne, 

AU 

emotional knowledge  

Havighurst et al. 

Low to 

Parents increased 

Reductions in children’s 

100% 

78% attended ≥ 

N/A 

(2010) 

middle-class 

self-awareness, 

behavior problems  

fidelity 

5 sessions 

regions in 

ER., and EC; 

Melbourne, 

reduction of ED  

AU 

reported  

Wilson et al. 

Low to high-

Reduction of ED; 

Reduction of child 

90-

97% attended ≥ 

N/A 

(2012) 

class regions 

improved EC and 

conduct behaviors  

100% 

4 sessions 

in 

positive 

Knox, AU 

involvement 

fidelity 

reported 

31 

 
 
 
Table 2. (cont’d) 

Havighurst et al. 

Clinical 

Improved EW and 

Significant 

100% 

35.5% attended 

N/A 

(2013) 

sample from 

ER; reduction of 

improvements in 

fidelity 

≥ 5 sessions 

hospitals in 

ED and greater 

frequency and intensity 

Melbourne, 

reports of empathy  

of child behavior  

AU 

Wilson et al. 

Fathers in 

Significant 

Reduction in challenging 

N/A 

97.6% attended 

N/A 

(2014) 

middle to 

improvements in 

child behaviors  

≥ 5 sessions 

high income 

EC, parent 

Victoria, AU 

satisfaction, and 

self-efficacy in 

parenting; 

reductions in ED 

Havighurst et al. 

Low to 

No change in EC; 

Significant reductions in 

100% 

78% attended ≥ 

N/A 

(2015) 

middle-class 

reductions in ED; 

child problem behaviors  

fidelity  

5 sessions 

regions in 

increased empathy  

Victoria, AU 

Duncombe et al. 

Melbourne 

N/A 

PPP and TIK were 

78% for 

TIK-6 sessions; 

N/A 

(2016) 

& Bendigo, 

equally effective in 

TIK, 

PPP-5.6 sessions 

AU 

reducing child behavior 

88% for 

problems  

PPP  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2. (cont’d) 

Wilson et al. 

Fathers in 

Increased empathy 

N/A 

100% 

87.4% attended 

N/A 

(2016) 

Melbourne 

and EE; reduction 

fidelity  

≥ 5 sessions 

& Victoria, 

of ED. 

AU 

Havighurst et al. 

Fathers in 

Significantly lower 

Reduction of child 

100% 

87.4% attended 

N/A 

(2019)  

Melbourne 

ED; improvement 

conduct behavior  

fidelity  

≥ 5 sessions 

& Geelong, 

in empathy and EE  

AU 

Edrissi et al. 

Preschool-

N/A 

Reduction in child 

100% 

63.3% attended 

N/A 

(2019) 

aged 

children 

Tehran, IR 

anxiety symptoms  

fidelity  

≥ 4 sessions 

Aghaie Meybodi 

Preschool 

Significantly lower 

Significantly lower child 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

et al. (2019)  

children 

ED; increased EC 

behavior problems  

IR 

Bølstad et al. 

Norwegian 

Increased EC and 

Significant decrease in 

100% 

N/A 

N/A 

(2021) 

parents of 

reduced ED 

behavioral problems; 

kindergarten 

parenting skills 

improved performance 

children 

Oslo, 

Norway 

sensitivity on self-

regulation task 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2. (cont’d) 

Chan et al. 

Chinese 

Significant 

Improvement of child’s 

High-

80.8% attended 

N/A 

(2021) 

parents of 

reduction of 

emotional 

rated 

≥ 5 sessions 

preschoolers 

punitive parenting 

lability/negativity at 6-

fidelity 

Hong Kong, 

and parental stress; 

week follow-up 

by 

China 

improvement in 

parents  

EE at 6-week 

follow-up 

Bjørk et al., 

Norwegian 

Increased EE; 

Significant improvement 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

(2022)* 

parents of 

decreased EFR 

in external and total 

kindergarten 

emotion understanding 

children 

Oslo, 

Norway 

Qiu & Shum 

Chinese 

Improved parental 

Significantly fewer 

100% 

84.6% attended 

Parents 

(2022) 

mothers of 

involvement; 

emotional and conduct 

fidelity 

≥ 5 sessions 

reported high 

preschoolers 

increased EC, EE, 

problems 

Chengdu, 

and EFR; reduced 

China 

ED; higher quality 

of family 

communication 

and parental  

34 

levels of 

satisfaction 

with the 

treatment 

program 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2. (cont’d) 

psychological 

well-being 

Note. Tx = treatment; AU = Australia; EE = expressive encouragement; EFR – emotion-focused responses; MR – minimization 

reactions; PR = punitive reactions; EC = emotion coaching; ED = emotion dismissing; ER = emotion regulation; PPP = Triple P 

Program; IR = Iran.  

*dissertation or master’s thesis 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
Research Questions and Hypotheses 

The current study examined the treatment engagement and fidelity, efficacy, and 

acceptability of TIK in a sample of Black parents of preschool-aged children. Measures of 

parental outcomes (i.e., emotion regulation, parental emotional style, parenting practices) and 

children’s social-emotional competence were collected from parents receiving TIK and those in 

the WLC. Data was collected pre-intervention, post-intervention, and at a one-month follow-up. 

The research questions are below and described in Table 3. 

Treatment Engagement and Fidelity 

Question 1. Are Black parents engaged in and completing Tuning in to Kids?  

Previous TIK literature shows that 80% of parents attended at least five scheduled TIK 

sessions (e.g., Havighurst et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2014, 2016). Research indicates that parent 

engagement rates are higher when scheduled sessions are convenient for families (Dumas et al., 

2007). Thornton and Calam (2011) recommend that communication with potential participants 

should be tailored to the needs of the parents. Studies examining parenting programs with Black 

families have indicated high attendance and program completion (e.g., 85% completing all 

sessions; e.g., Coard et al., 2007). More research is needed to support program completion for 

Black families to highlight the significance of using TIK for these families. It was hypothesized 

that TIK parents will have high attendance (i.e., 80% of parents attend five or more sessions), 

engagement, and completion rates.  

Primary Outcomes: Parent Variables 

Question 2a. Is Tuning in to Kids an effective program to improve Black parents’ 

emotion regulation?  

Research indicates that parents with solid emotion regulation skills can positively impact 

their child’s emotional competence; however, the literature on improving parental emotion 

regulation through emotion-focused interventions is scarce. PMEP (Gottman et al., 1996) 

indicates that parents who are more aware of their emotions can regulate and express them better. 

EC strategies in helping their children should then lead to changes in their regulatory skills 

(Gottman et al., 1997). The literature suggests that stressed or overwhelmed parents are less 

likely to effectively support children’s emotion regulation (Gohm & Clore, 2002; Salovey et al., 

1995; Suchy, 2011; Yap et al., 2008). Parenting programs also demonstrate the bidirectional 

relationship between parental emotion regulation and parenting practices, with improvements in 

36 

 
 
 
both areas following exposure to parenting programs (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2022). The TIK 

model provides a session with activities and handouts on understanding parental and child-

related emotional awareness (Havighurst et al., 2004; Havighurst & Harley, 2007). There is 

limited intervention research directly examining changes in parental emotion regulation; 

however, the direct approach of TIK suggests that activities created to encourage active 

reflection of emotion regulation impact Black parents’ emotion regulation. It was hypothesized 

that parents who complete TIK report improvements in their perceived ability to regulate 

emotions on the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004).  

Question 2b. Is Tuning in to Kids effective in changing Black parents’ beliefs using 

emotion coaching parenting styles?  

PMEP (Gottman et al., 1996, 1997) suggests that EC philosophies benefit both the parent 

and the child. Specifically, research shows that positive emotion coaching attitudes benefit Black 

children and their parents and that many Black parents already employ these practices (Labella, 

2018). The TIK research shows evidence of the effectiveness of TIK for parents primarily in 

Australia (e.g., Havighurst et al., 2019), Iran (e.g., Aghaie et al., 2019), and China (e.g., Qiu & 

Shum, 2022); however, limited research has been conducted in the U.S. or with minoritized 

populations. Parents in previous efficacy trials reported improvements in emotion coaching, 

signifying adherence to the principles of the intervention. TIK provides direct instruction and 

role-playing opportunities for parents to engage with emotion coaching styles in practice 

scenarios. Due to the research supporting the use of EC styles and beliefs in Black parents (e.g., 

McLoyd et al., 2019), it was hypothesized that Black parents report increased beliefs in using 

emotion coaching methods after completing TIK, as measured on the Parental Emotion Style 

Questionnaire (PESQ; Havighurst et al., 2010). 

Question 2c. Is Tuning in to Kids effective in increasing Black parents’ use of 

positive emotion socialization practices (i.e., emotion-focused reactions, problem-

focused reactions, expressive encouragement)?  

Parenting practices are some of the primary behaviors that influence a child’s 

psychosocial adjustment and behavior (Bandura, 1971; Eisenberg, Cumberland, et al., 1998; 

Fisher & Skowron, 2017; Ryan et al., 2017). Previous TIK literature indicates that the program 

significantly improves parents' self-reported positive emotion socialization practices, specifically 

in expressive encouragement (e.g., Williams & Carlson, 2023; Havighurst et al., 2015). An 

37 

 
 
examination of a culturally specific parenting program suggests that building Black parents' 

competence in responding to children’s social-emotional needs improved parental practices and 

decreased parent-reported child behavioral problems (Coard et al., 2007). A recent meta-analysis 

demonstrated improvements in emotion-focused parenting practices and their direct association 

with children’s improved emotion knowledge and skills following parenting programs (Zinsser 

et al., 2021). Throughout the program, TIK uses modeling and role-play activities to show 

parents specific examples to respond to their children’s difficult emotions. Research also 

suggests that Black parents are likely to use problem-focused parenting practices and emphasize 

expressive emotions with their children (Boykin & Toms, 1985; McLoyd et al., 2019). It was 

hypothesized that parents who receive TIK will report perceived improvements in positive 

parental emotion socialization practices on the Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale 

(CCNES; Fabes et al., 1990). 

Secondary Outcomes: Child Variables 

Question 2d. Is Tuning in to Kids effective in indirectly improving children’s social-

emotional competence?  

Parents who employ more EC practices report improvements in their child’s emotional 

competence (Ellis et al., 2014; Havighurst et al., 2004). Research also indicates that 

improvements in parental emotion regulation and parenting practices work bidirectionally with 

improvements in children’s social-emotional competence (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2022; 

Zinsser et al., 2021). By targeting parents’ awareness of their and their children’s emotions, the 

TIK suite of interventions focuses on teaching parents and caregivers to coach children through 

their emotions, contributing to their emotion regulation and competence. The literature indicates 

that Black parents’ participation in parenting programs improves children’s social-emotional 

competence (e.g., Coard et al., 2007). It was hypothesized that parents who receive TIK report 

improvements in their children’s emotion regulation and competence on the Devereux Early 

Childhood Assessment for Preschoolers, Second Edition (DECA-P2; LeBuffe & Naglieri, 2012). 

Treatment Acceptability and Feasibility 

Question 3. Do Black parents find Tuning in to Kids an acceptable and feasible 

program?  

Acceptability data in the TIK literature is limited. One study showed that 88% of parents 

rated TIK as highly acceptable in predominantly White samples (Havighurst et al., 2015). 

38 

 
 
Research shows that parents appreciate the opportunity for peer support in group-based programs 

(Kane et al., 2007). In a study for Black parents of children with autism, Kaiser and colleagues 

(2022) reported that Black parents indicated the importance of a shared peer space among other 

Black parents and wanted continued peer support following the end of the training program. It 

was hypothesized that parents receiving TIK have similar rates to prior studies employing group 

interventions as indicated by the Treatment Evaluation Questionnaire-Parent Form (TEQ-P; 

Kratochwill et al., 2003) and parent interviews about treatment acceptability and alignment with 

parenting values. Overall scores of 84 were considered adequate levels of acceptability, with 110 

or higher indicating high treatment acceptability (Kratochwill et al., 2003). In-person TIK 

treatment sessions have reported high integrity by trained facilitators, high attendance by parents, 

and limited acceptability outcomes for TIK. 

39 

 
 
Table 3. Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Measures 
Research Question 

Hypothesis 

Measure/Variables 

Question 1. Are Black parents 

It was hypothesized that TIK parents 

Intervention Phase: Attendance & Treatment 

engaged in and completing Tuning 

will demonstrate high engagement, 

Fidelity Checklist 

in to Kids? 

attendance, and completion rates. 

Post-Intervention: Rate of completion & Parent 

Question 2a. Is Tuning in to Kids 

It was hypothesized that parents in the 

Pre, Post, Follow-up: Difficulties in Emotion 

an effective program to improve 

TIK group would report greater 

Regulation Scale (DERS) 

Black parents’ emotion regulation? 

changes in self-report emotion 

Post-Intervention: Parent Interviews 

Interviews 

regulation between pre- and post-

intervention and follow-up. 

Question 2b. Is Tuning in to Kids 

It was hypothesized that parents in the 

Pre, Post, Follow-up: Parental Emotional Style 

effective in changing Black parents’ 

TIK group would report improved 

Questionnaire (PESQ)  

beliefs using emotion coaching 

beliefs in emotion coaching strategies 

Post-Intervention: Parent Interviews 

parenting styles? 

between pre- and post-intervention and 

follow-up. 

Question 2c. Is Tuning in to Kids 

It was hypothesized that parents in the 

Pre, Post, Follow-up: Coping with Children’s 

effective in increasing Black 

TIK group would report increased 

Negative  

parents’ use of positive emotion 

positive parental emotion socialization 

Post-Intervention: Parent Interviews 

socialization practices (i.e., 

practices between pre- and post-

emotion-focused reactions,  

intervention and follow-up. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3. (cont’d) 

problem-focused reactions, 

expressive encouragement)? 

Question 2d. Is Tuning in to Kids 

It was hypothesized that parents in the 

Pre, Post, Follow-up: Devereux Early Childhood 

effective in indirectly improving 

TIK group would report an increase in 

Assessment for Preschoolers, Second Edition 

children’s social-emotional 

their children’s social-emotional 

(DECA-P2)  

competence? 

competence and behavior between pre- 

Post-Intervention: Parent Interviews 

and post-intervention and follow-up. 

Question 3. Do Black parents find 

It was hypothesized that Black parents 

Post-intervention 

Tuning in to Kids an acceptable and 

would find Tuning in to Kids an 

Treatment Evaluation Questionnaire–Parent Form 

feasible program? 

effective and acceptable program after 

(TEQ-P) & Parent Interviews 

completing the intervention. 

41 

 
 
 
CHAPTER 3 

METHODS 

Researcher Positionality 

Quantitative research is often considered objective; however, many factors influence how 

these data and results are interpreted and reported (Jafar, 2018). These factors include the 

measures chosen to collect data, the analytic plan, how the results are discussed, and the 

implications outlined. Within this mixed-methods study, I am examining quantitative outcomes 

and qualitative interviews to further build on my understanding of the primary outcomes related 

to Black parents’ perceptions of an evidence-based emotion program. Given the history of the 

literature positioning Black parents’ use of unsupportive parenting practices, I need to provide 

my positionality as the primary researcher conducting this study. As a Black woman researching 

Black parents, I must consider how my race, gender, and experiences influence my investment in 

this work and their challenges to my research. 

My identity as a Black woman heavily influences my interest in this work. My 

experience in this work stems from my emotional socialization growing up with parents whom 

research could deem “unsupportive” in some contexts. Still, I understand that my experiences are 

nuanced. My focus on early childhood reflects a period in my life where I experienced different 

parenting styles, split between two households. Reflecting on my experiences with my parents, I 

acknowledged how they could be placed in separate parenting buckets, even knowing their goals 

for my well-being were the same. Through these reflections, I wondered about the information 

available to support parents, understanding that resources were inaccessible or inappropriate for 

all parents’ needs. 

Lastly, I am not a parent. My interest in this work is through the lens of my experiences 

as a young child and observations of parenting among my generational peers. As a non-parent, I 

understand that my inexperience influences my interpretation of my findings in implementing the 

parenting practices within the intervention and understanding how they can be applied in a real-

world context. Knowing this, my training as a school psychologist with a developmental 

background served in relaying information as psychoeducation to parents and not in a role as a 

“parenting expert.”  

I believe that my racial and gender identities are assets to this study, as they can assist in 

building rapport with my same-race participants (i.e., Black parents and caregivers). The 

42 

 
 
 
 
literature on parenting programs with minoritized populations points directly to participants’ 

comfort in sharing their experiences with individuals of the same race. Our shared identity 

increases comfort and provides an open space for parents to share difficulties related to their 

parenting throughout the program. Conversely, I recognize how shared identity can lay the 

foundation for both parties to make assumptions about the other. To address these challenges, I 

asked participants to elaborate in discussions and interviews to remind participants that no one’s 

experience is right or wrong. I also engaged in self-reflection after each intervention session to 

reduce bias throughout the study.  

Participants 

As seen in Figure 5, 126 participants were assessed for eligibility, and 103 were excluded 

from the study due to not meeting inclusion criteria (e.g., child too young or too old, high self-

regulation rating, not identifying as Black/African-American), not complete full consent or the 

pre-survey (n = 4), being flagged as a potential bot by the Qualtrics data capture system (n = 6), 

or for completing the screening survey after the target sample size was achieved (n = 27). The 23 

parents who agreed to participate were randomly assigned to either the treatment group (n = 11) 

or the waitlist control group (n = 12). Two parents dropped out of the study before beginning the 

intervention due to last-minute scheduling conflicts, and thus did not complete post-measures. In 

total, 21 parents (i.e., 9 in the treatment group and 12 in the WLC group) enrolled in the study 

and were included in the analyses. These parents (M = 32.2 years, SD = 5.5) completed 

information for a child between the ages of 3 and 5 years old (M = 43.5 months, SD = 7.8) who 

were rated as having low self-regulation skills. Demographic characteristics of the 21 

participants who completed the study are presented in Table 4. 

Eligible participants for this study included parents who identify as Black and have a 

child between the ages of 3 and 5 years old. Parents were asked to indicate their specific ethnic 

identities within the African diaspora. Inclusion criteria included parents who rated their child as 

having difficulty with self-regulation (based on the Self-Regulation subscale on the DECA-P2, a 

raw score of 20 or less). Participants were also eligible if they spoke English as a first language 

and had access to a computer with internet access to participate in the weekly sessions over 

videoconferencing.  

43 

 
 
 
Figure 5. Participant Enrollment and Allocation. 

Measures 

Treatment Engagement and Fidelity 

Participant engagement was measured by documentation of session attendance and 

during the parent interview. After each session, fidelity checklists were completed by one of the 

graduate research assistants (GRA) to ensure the facilitator’s adherence to implementation 

quality. Checklists allowed the facilitator to address missing or modified content for future 

sessions. Each checklist contains the necessary topics for the facilitator to cover in each session 

44 

 
 
 
 
and activities (e.g., role-play, small group discussions). The facilitator can also cover optional 

content based on the needs of the group. Optional material was available in sessions 2-6. It 

included content specific to helping parents understand how they potentially use emotion 

coaching in existing relationships, providing in-depth psychoeducation on child development, 

deeper explanations of meta-emotion as needed, discussing non-critical parenting styles, 

difficulties with eating and mealtimes, and emotional self-care. If the facilitator includes some of 

the optional material, the percentage of material delivered with fidelity can increase by an 

additional 8-20% per session. The TIK facilitator manual provides formal fidelity checklists to 

note which activities are completed (see Appendix A), as indicated by “yes” or “no.” A 

percentage of treatment fidelity was computed for each session, and an average was calculated 

across all sessions. These topics integrated emotion coaching and child development to support 

parents’ understanding of their child’s emotional difficulties. 

Treatment Efficacy 

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale 

(DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004) is a 36-item self-report assessing the respondent’s emotional 

acceptance, ability to regulate emotion, perceived ability to engage in goal-directed behaviors 

when distressed, and emotional awareness (see Appendix B). Respondents rate how often the 

item applies from 1 (almost never; 0-10%) to 5 (almost always; 91-100%). The DERS consists of 

six subscales (1) Nonacceptance of emotional responses (e.g., When I am upset, I feel ashamed 

of myself for feeling that way), (2) Impulse control difficulties (e.g., I experience my emotions as 

overwhelming and out of control), (3) Difficulties engaging in goal-directed behavior (e.g., When 

I am upset, I have difficulty thinking of anything else), (4) Lack of emotional awareness (e.g., 

When I am upset, I believe that my feelings are valid and important [reverse scored]), (5) Lack of 

emotional clarity (e.g., I have difficulty making sense out of my feelings), and (6) Limited access 

to emotion regulation strategies (e.g., When I am upset, it takes me a long time to feel better). 

Average subscale scores were computed at pre-intervention, post-intervention, and one-month 

follow-up. According to scoring guidelines, higher scores indicate more significant challenges in 

emotion regulation.  

The original scale demonstrated high internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha of .93, 

and each subscale had adequate internal consistency (α > .80; Gratz & Roemer, 2004). Ritschel 

and colleagues (2015) examined the psychometric properties of the DERS across demographic 

45 

 
 
 
groups. They found that the scale can be applied to adults and adolescents across Asian 

American, African American, and Caucasian American participants as reliably as the initial 

validation sample. For African Americans, there were no differences across gender or ethnicity, 

demonstrating a high overall internal consistency (α = .94) and strong internal consistency across 

each subscale with Cronbach’s alpha of .89, .82, .86, .82, .78, and .87, respectively (Ritschel et 

al., 2015). Additionally, Ritschel and colleagues (2015) demonstrated convergent validity of the 

DERS with validated measures of emotion dysregulation and indices of psychological symptoms 

generally associated with emotion dysregulation (i.e., depression, anxiety, distress). 

Table 4. Demographics and Characteristics for Participants in the TIK and WLC Groups 
WLC (n = 12) 

TIK (n = 9) 

Parent 

Child 

Age (years) 

Female: n (%) 

Male: n (%) 

Age (months) 

Female: n (%) 

Male: n (%) 

Relationship to child: n (%) 

Biological Mother 

Biological Father 

Ethnicity 

African American 

Jamaican 

Education: n (%) 

HS or GED 

Some College 

College 

Graduate School 

Employment: n (%) 

M 

SD 

32.4 

6.2 

5 (55.6) 

4 (44.4) 

M 

32 

SD 

5.2 

5 (41.7) 

7 (58.3) 

48.2 

8.1 

39.9 

5.6 

4 (33.3) 

8 (66.7) 

5 (41.7) 

7 (58.3) 

11 (91.7) 

1 (8.3) 

- 

1 (8.3) 

7 (58.3) 

4 (33.3) 

2 (22.2) 

7 (77.8) 

5 (55.6) 

4 (44.4) 

9 (100%) 

- 

1 (11.1) 

- 

5 (55.6) 

3 (33.3) 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4. (cont’d) 

Full-time 

Part-time 

US Region: n (%) 

New England 

Mid-Atlantic 

East North Central 

West North Central 

South Atlantic 

Pacific 

8 (88.9) 

1 (11.1) 

- 

- 

5 (55.6) 

1 (11.1) 

3 (33.3) 

- 

9 (75) 

3 (25) 

1 (8.3) 

3 (25) 

5 (41.7) 

- 

- 

3 (25) 

Variables at Baseline 

TIK (n = 9) 

WLC (n = 12) 

Self-Regulation (T scores) 

Total Protective Factors (T scores) 

Emotion Coaching 

Emotion Dismissing 

Total DERS 

M 

34.0 

28.4 

45.2 

40.3 

88.9 

SD 

4.9 

1.0 

4.5 

5.1 

23.4 

M 

35.7 

29.3 

45.0 

38.8 

86.2 

SD 

4.8 

1.8 

6.0 

7.6 

21.4 

Note. New England = Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, 

Vermont. Mid-Atlantic = Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York. 

East North Central = Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin. West North Central = Iowa, 

Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota. South Atlantic = 

Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia. Pacific = Alaska, 

California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington. DERS = Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. 

Parental Emotional Style Questionnaire. The Parental Emotional Style Questionnaire 

(PESQ; Havighurst et al., 2010) is a parent-report measure examining parental beliefs about a 

child’s ability to cope with various emotions (e.g., fear, anger, sadness). The PESQ (see 

Appendix C) is a 21-item measure adapted from the Maternal Emotional Style Questionnaire 

(Lagacé-Séguin & Coplan, 2005) to broaden the items for caregivers other than mothers. The EC 

subscale includes 11 items (e.g., “When my child is angry, it is a time for getting close”). The 

ED subscale includes 10 items (e.g., “I prefer my child to be happy rather than overly 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
emotional”). Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 

(strongly agree). Subscale scores were calculated, with higher scores on the EC being associated 

with high EC beliefs and practices and high ED scores indicating high instances of ED beliefs 

and practices. Scores on the EC subscale were used in the formal analyses, while scores on the 

ED subscale were examined informally. Subscales of the PESQ have good internal consistency 

across time for ED (α = .78 to .84) and EC (α = .82 to .87; Havighurst et al., 2013).  

Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale. The Coping with Children’s 

Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES; Fabes et al., 1990) measured parents’ emotion socialization 

practices across specific situations. The CCNES (see Appendix D) is a 72-item tool assessing 

how parents respond to 12 scenarios across six subscales: emotion-focused reactions (EFR), 

problem-focused reactions (PFR), distressed reactions (DR), punitive reactions (PR), expressive 

encouragement (EE), and minimization reactions (MR). Parents provided ratings on a 7-point 

scale from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely) to indicate how likely they were to respond to their 

child in several ways. Twelve scenarios include responses from each subscale. For example, “If 

my child loses some prized possession and reacts with tears, I would,” parents are asked to rate 

the likelihood of responding a certain way. Fabes et al. (2002) report each scale as having good 

test-retest reliability (α = .69 to .85), construct validity, and stability over four months.  

Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Preschoolers, Second Edition. The 

Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Preschoolers, Second Edition (DECA-P2; LeBuffe & 

Naglieri, 2012) is a 38-item strengths-based assessment measuring social-emotional competence, 

behavior concerns, and risk factors for young children between the ages of 2 and 5 years old. 

Twenty-seven items comprise a Total Protective Factors (TPF) scale, divided into three 

subscales – Initiative, Self-Regulation, and Attachment/Relationships. Raw scores on the DECA-

P2 are converted into T-scores. TPF T-scores of 60 or above indicate a Strength, scores between 

41 and 59 indicate Typical Functioning, and scores below 40 are Areas of Need. An 11-item 

scale represents parent-reported Behavior Concerns (BC), where a T-score above 60 indicates an 

Area of Need, and scores of 59 or below are considered Typical. Parents respond to the items 

using a 5-point Likert scale from 0 (never) to 4 (very frequently). It is recommended to wait 

approximately four weeks between the pretest and posttest data collection for the DECA-P2, 

with T-scores representing ratings on a new set of behaviors (LeBuffe & Naglieri, 2012).  

48 

 
 
 
Psychometric properties of all scales indicate high levels of reliability and validity, with 

the TPF scale presenting the greatest indicator of strengths relative to the three subscales 

(LeBuffe & Naglieri, 2012). Test-retest reliability is acceptable and strong across the TPF and 

BC scales with strong correlations between same-parent ratings of their children at different time 

points, r = .88, p < .01 and r =.78 and p < .01, respectively (LeBuffe & Naglieri, 2012). 

Additionally, high Cronbach’s alpha coefficients indicate strong internal consistency for the TPF 

(α = .92) and BC (α = .80) scales. The DECA-P2 also demonstrates solid validity. A comparison 

between a clinical sample with “emotional and behavioral disturbances” (N = 125) and a 

comparison sample (N = 126) demonstrated strong, significant differences displaying evidence of 

the DECA-P2’s ability to discriminate between groups of children with emotional and behavioral 

difficulties and their nonidentified peers (i.e., criterion-related validity). LeBuffe and Naglieri 

(2012) also examined “irrelevant variance” to determine group differences across race and 

ethnicity and the appropriateness of using the DECA-P2 with minoritized children. Data suggests 

negligible differences between Black, White, and Hispanic children.  

Treatment Acceptability 

Treatment Evaluation Questionnaire-Parent Form. The Treatment Evaluation 

Questionnaire-Parent (TEQ-P; Kelley et al., 1989) is a 21-item parent-rated acceptability 

measure (see Appendix E). Parents in the treatment group completed the TEQ-P post-

intervention to assess their perceived acceptability of TIK. The three subscales of treatment are 

Acceptability (11 items), Effectiveness (8 items), and Time Required to complete the 

intervention (2 items). Parents provided ratings of their experience in the intervention on a 6-

point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Total scores can range from 

21 to 126, with 110 or higher indicating high parent-reported acceptability (Kratochwill et al., 

2003). Scores indicate adequate ratings for each subscale at or above 55, 36, or 9 for 

acceptability, effectiveness, and time required, respectively (Kratochwill et al., 2003). The TEQ-

P was adapted from the Treatment Evaluation Inventory (TEI; Kazdin, 1980), which has been 

shown to have high internal consistency (α = .97) and construct validity (Newton & Sturmey, 

2004). 

Parent Interviews 

Parent interviews were conducted post-intervention with parents in the treatment group to 

assess their perceived efficacy, barriers, treatment acceptability, and perspectives on TIK’s 

49 

 
 
 
alignment with their culture and parenting philosophies. Interview questions regarding 

effectiveness, barriers, and acceptability were developed to align with subscales from the TEQ-P 

and previous researcher questions to gather information related to the acceptability and 

feasibility of the intervention (see Appendix F; Korest, 2021). Additionally, parents were asked 

about their thoughts on the intervention's efficacy, delivery, and alignment with their personal 

and cultural views of parenting. The data collected from parent interviews provide additional 

information from the parents’ perspectives that may not be apparent from the quantitative data. 

Following the last intervention session, the GRA conducted the interviews via Zoom after 

collecting the one-month follow-up surveys.  

Procedures 

Recruitment 

Parents were recruited through community partners in early childcare settings in 

Michigan and through social media posting in parenting groups and using the primary 

investigator’s (PI) connections after receiving approval from MSU-IRB (IRB Approval #7571, 

Received on November 29, 2022). Eligible parents agreed to complete data collection measures 

at pre- and post-intervention, along with a one-month follow-up data point one month after the 

intervention ends. Additionally, parents assigned to the treatment group agreed to complete a 

video-recorded parent interview following the one-month follow-up data collection. Parents in 

both groups received the TIK program, with the WLC group receiving the intervention after the 

one-month follow-up surveys. Parents in both conditions received up to $60 in incentives to 

participate and complete surveys, and parents in the treatment group received an additional $15 

for the parent interview.  

Conditions 

Tuning in to Kids (TIK; Havighurst & Harley, 2007). The TIK program includes six 

two-hour sessions facilitated by a certified trainer in a group format. These sessions were held 

virtually to reduce barriers to accessing the service (e.g., transportation issues, busy schedules; 

Breitenstein et al., 2014) and reduce contact due to the COVID-19 global pandemic. Facilitators 

followed a manual with core material that was followed sequentially in addition to optional 

materials that can be delivered at any time based on parent needs. TIK programs are meant to be 

delivered as a six-session, weekly, two-hour program.  

50 

 
 
 
Each session covers a different topic related to understanding emotions and how to coach 

children through their emotional experiences (see Table 5). The six sessions build upon the last, 

focusing on (1) raising emotionally intelligent children, (2) naming emotions, (3) understanding 

the child’s emotional experience, (4) self-care, problem-solving, and coaching fears/worries, (5) 

emotion coaching a child’s anger, and (6) emotionally intelligent parenting. Participants were 

sent a packet of handouts, worksheets, and supplemental materials to follow during the 

facilitated sessions and use outside the intervention sessions. Between each weekly session, 

parents were asked to practice implementing their new skills and reflect on the topics covered. 

After each session, the group facilitator and GRA completed the TIK Program Fidelity Checklist 

to ensure fidelity to the program. This form allows facilitators to record notes and questions from 

parents that can be addressed in the following session. Parents were asked to indicate which 

home activities they completed between sessions. 

Table 5. Tuning in to Kids Group-Facilitated Sessions 
Session Number  Session Title 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Setting Out- How to Raise Emotionally Intelligent Children 

Naming the Emotion 

Understanding your child’s emotional experience 

Self-care, problem-solving, and coaching fears and worries 

Emotion Coaching and your child’s anger 

Emotionally intelligent parenting: now and in the future 

Waitlist Control (WLC). Parents randomly assigned to the WLC were assessed during 

pre- and post-intervention. During the six weeks of the intervention for the TIK group, parents in 

the WLC group were given an electronic book called The Emotionally Intelligent Child: 

Effective Strategies for Parenting Self-Aware, Cooperative, and Well-Balanced Kids (Katz & 

Hadani, 2022). The book provides evidence-based strategies and general information about 

raising emotionally intelligent children. Parents were directed to read approximately one chapter 

per week reading the book. Giving the WLC parents a book covering similar content is advised 

due to the needs identified by participating parents. Eligible parents indicated that their child 

struggles with emotion regulation; thus, leaving them without treatment or intervention may be 

unethical before they are granted access to the TIK intervention (Kazdin, 2021). After they 

51 

 
 
 
completed the measures post-intervention, they were contacted to participate in the TIK 

intervention.  

Project Personnel and Training 

Project personnel included the PI and two graduate students who served as GRAs. The PI 

is a Michigan State University doctoral candidate in School Psychology, completing this project 

partially fulfilling the requirements to obtain a Doctor of Philosophy in School Psychology. The 

PI is the primary researcher responsible for designing the study, recruiting participants, 

collecting materials, providing incentives, managing data collection, training the GRA, and 

analyzing the data. Additionally, the PI and a doctoral-level GRA obtained facilitator training for 

TIK with the program developers and served as the TIK intervention facilitators. The doctoral-

level GRA assisted the PI with intervention sessions, data collection, and conducting and coding 

parent interviews. A specialist-level GRA assisted with interview transcriptions and coding the 

audio-recorded parent interviews.  

Treatment Phases 

Pre-Intervention. Eligible parents read and signed the informed consent forms outlining 

the (1) purpose of the study, (2) potential risks associated with the study, (3) benefits from 

participation, and (4) notes related to confidentiality throughout the study (see Appendix G). 

Parents were randomly assigned to either the TIK or WLC group. Parents in both groups 

completed the DERS, PESQ, CCNES, and DECA-P2 before the intervention began. Once the 

measures were completed, parents in the TIK condition were sent an anonymized poll to 

schedule the six TIK sessions with the facilitator. Parents in the WLC group were given The 

Emotionally Intelligent Child: Effective Strategies for Parenting Self-Aware, Cooperative, and 

Well-Balanced Kids (Katz & Hadani, 2022). 

Intervention Phase. Parents attended weekly two-hour sessions throughout the TIK 

group's intervention phase. The facilitator delivered the intervention using HIPAA-compliant 

Zoom, facilitated discussions, and provided weekly materials. The GRAs completed a fidelity 

checklist for each session and took attendance for every session.  

Post-Intervention. After the TIK intervention ended, all parents had one week to 

complete the DERS, PESQ, CCNES, and DECA-P2. Parents who received TIK also completed 

the TEQ-P and were contacted to complete the parent interview following the post-intervention 

questionnaires. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
One-Month Follow-up. One month after the study ended, all parents were asked to 

complete the following measures: DERS, PESQ, CCNES, and DECA-P2. After completing the 

follow-up questionnaires, parents in the WLC group received information to schedule the TIK 

program, and parents in the treatment group completed their parent interviews with the doctoral-

level GRA. 

Data Analysis  

Treatment Engagement and Fidelity. Treatment fidelity was calculated using the 

percentages of items completed from the fidelity checklists. Averages of the six sessions were 

computed for the TIK group and compared to an 80% completion goal, aligning with the 

standards of treatment implementation (Durlak & DuPre, 2008). Fidelity rates were also 

calculated to include the percentage of sessions with optional material. Additionally, parent 

attendance was collected to evaluate participant engagement as a fidelity measure.  

Treatment Efficacy. Measures of treatment efficacy (i.e., parent and child outcomes) 

were analyzed using mixed between-within subjects’ analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess 

the main effects of each independent variable and whether the interaction between them is 

significant. Mixed ANOVAs are often used in applied research using longitudinal data to 

examine within-person measures (i.e., time, parental emotion regulation, parental emotion 

coaching beliefs and attitudes, parental emotion socialization practices, and children’s social-

emotional competence) and between-groups factors (i.e., treatment condition; Ross & Masters, 

2022). They are especially helpful in applied research to examine how a given treatment impacts 

each individual over time (Singh et al., 2013).  

Treatment Acceptability. The TEQ-P was used to collect treatment acceptability data 

for parents receiving TIK, and total scores were calculated for each parent and averaged across 

the group. Scores are considered highly acceptable at 110 or higher (Kratochwill et al., 2003). 

Parent interviews were coded for themes related to barriers, acceptability, and effectiveness of 

treatment. 

Parent Interviews. The interview audio recordings were initially transcribed using the 

Otter.ai software and were checked for accuracy by a GRA. The transcripts were analyzed using 

an exploratory, thematic, inductive analysis approach. This approach allows the data to drive the 

themes and codes from the interview rather than use predetermined codes to match the interview 

content (Braun & Clarke, 2012). The thematic analysis approach allowed the data to speak for 

53 

 
 
 
itself and provide additional context to the quantitative outcomes. The PI led the research team in 

a six-phase process to examine the patterns in the qualitative data and guide the analysis (Braun 

& Clarke, 2012). The first phase of the analysis consisted of the PI and GRAs becoming familiar 

with the data by listening to the audio recordings and reading the transcripts. The next two 

phases allowed the research team to generate initial codes emerging from the data (e.g., 

“difficulty using emotion coaching”) and use those codes to begin capturing broad themes from 

the codes (e.g., “changes in child behavior”). Through an iterative process, the team continued to 

review the potential themes and their relationship to emergent codes. In this phase, the PI 

examined whether certain codes should be themes and vice versa. The fifth phase consisted of 

naming and defining the themes to ensure they were distinct or combined if necessary. The final 

phase is producing the data report, including extracting example quotes from participants and 

including them in Chapter 4 of this dissertation (Braun & Clarke, 2012). 

54 

 
 
CHAPTER 4 

RESULTS 

Quantitative Results 

Results of Little’s MCAR test revealed that data was missing completely at random 

(𝑥2 = .000, 𝑝 = 1.000; > .05); thus, all data are present in the analyses. Group-level analyses 

and trends are presented in the sections below. Individual-level change in the TIK group across 

parental emotion regulation, emotion coaching, emotion dismissing, problem-focused reactions, 

expressive encouragement, and parent-reported change in children’s self-regulation are captured 

in Table 6. 

Table 6. Individual Parent-Reported Change Across Time by Variable 

ID 

500 

501 

507 

512 

521 

522 

523 

526 

528 

Sessions 

TEQ-

Attended 

P 

DERS 

EC 

ED 

PFR 

EE 

6 

6 

6 

6 

5 

2 

5 

5 

4 

94.0 

97.0 

95.0 

96.0 

89.0 

84.0 

99.0 

111.0 

96.0 

-15.0 

-15.0 

+23.0a 

-45.0 

-5.0 

+11.0a 

-6.0 

-7.0 

-5.0 

+2.0 

+4.0 

+1.0 

+7.0 

N/C 

N/C 

+3.0 

-3.0a 

-1.0a 

-2.0 

+2.0a 

-1.0 

-21.0 

-4.0 

N/C 

-5.0 

-11.0 

-1.0 

+0.6 

+0.8 

-0.8a 

N/C 

+1.0 

+0.6 

N/C 

-0.4a 

N/C 

+0.8 

+0.8 

+1.0 

+2.3 

+0.7 

+0.3 

-0.2a 

-0.3a 

-0.3a 

Child 

SR 

+14.0 

+12.0 

+6.0 

+8.0 

+12.0 

+14.0 

+8.0 

+10.0 

-8.0a 

Note. DERS = Difficulties in Emotion Regulation. EC = Emotion Coaching. ED = Emotion 

Dismissing. PFR = Problem-Focused Reactions. EE = Expressive Encouragement. SR = Self-

Regulation. NC = No change. 

a Change between pre and post occurred in the opposite intended direction. 

Research Question 1. As measured by attendance and intervention completion, were Black 

parents engaged, and did they complete Tuning in to Kids? 

Parent engagement and program completion were measured by attendance at weekly 

sessions and reported engagement with audio recordings. Overall, seven of the nine parents 

(78%) who received the TIK program completed the program as determined by attending five or 

more sessions (Havighurst et al., 2019). Four parents attended all six sessions, three attended five 

55 

 
 
 
 
sessions, one attended four, and one parent only attended two. One of the GRAs reviewed 

recordings of each session and completed fidelity checklists using the checklists provided in the 

TIK manual, to see whether the facilitator covered the intended material. The TIK facilitator 

adhered to the program manual with strong fidelity at 100% across all sessions (see Table 7), 

meeting the criteria of adequate adherence greater than 80% (Durlak & Dupre, 2008). Some 

sessions included optional activities, making the per-session fidelity percentages exceed 100% in 

some cases. 

Table 7. Attendance and Percentages of Group Facilitator Fidelity Scores for the TIK Group 
Optional 

Session (Title) 

n  Fidelity 

Material* 

Session 1 (Setting Out: How to Raise Emotionally Intelligent 

6 

100% 

100% 

Children) 

Session 2 (Naming the Emotion) 

Session 3 (Understanding Your Child’s Emotional Experience) 

Session 4 (Self-care, Problem-Solving, and Coaching Fears and 

Worries) 

Session 5 (Emotion Coaching and Your Child’s Anger) 

Session 6 (Emotionally Intelligent Parenting: Now and in the 

Future) 

Total 

9 

8 

6 

8 

8 

100% 

100% 

100% 

114% 

120% 

120% 

100% 

100% 

108% 

117% 

100% 

111% 

*Calculated percentages exceeded 100% due to the facilitator including optional material 

from the manual. 

Research Question 2a. Is Tuning in to Kids an effective program to improve Black parents’ 

emotion regulation? 

Overall, there was no statistically significant main effect for total difficulties in emotion 

2
regulation [F(2, 18) = 0.88, p = .770, 𝜂𝑝

 = .005], suggesting no difference in the effectiveness of 

the two treatment approaches across the total emotion regulation scale. While the total emotion 

regulation scale was not significant, it is important to note downward trends in parents’ total 

difficulties with emotion regulation from pre-intervention (M = 88.9, SD = 23.4) to post-

intervention (M = 81.8, SD = 19.6) to one-month follow-up (M = 74.3, SD = 18.6). This 14-point 

reduction from pre-intervention to one-month follow-up in the treatment group, on average, 

56 

 
 
 
indicates greater improvement in parental emotion regulation compared to the 4-point reduction, 

on average, in the control group. There was, however, a main effect of time for both groups on 

2
the difficulty engaging in goal-directed behavior [F(2, 18) = 4.51, p = .026, 𝜂𝑝

 = .33] and lack of 

2
emotional clarity [F(1, 19) = .09, p = .770, 𝜂𝑝

 = .005] subscales with both groups showing a 

reduction in scores and improvements in engaging in goal-directed behavior and emotional 

clarity. A summary of group-level data and interaction effects is presented in Table 8. 

Research Question 2b. Is Tuning in to Kids effective in changing Black parents’ beliefs using 

emotion coaching parenting styles? 

A mixed between-within-subjects ANOVA was conducted to assess whether Tuning in to 

Kids changed parents’ emotion-coaching parenting style and beliefs compared to parents in the 

WLC group. No statistically significant main effects were detected when comparing the 

participant conditions using the Parent Emotional Style Questionnaire across the emotion 

2
coaching [F(1, 18) = .002, p = .963, 𝜂𝑝

 = .00] and emotion dismissing, [F(1, 18) = .149, p = .704, 

2
𝜂𝑝

 = .008] subscales. While the emotion coaching and emotion dismissing subscales were not 

significant, it is important to note a slight increase in parents’ emotion coaching attitudes and 

beliefs pre-intervention (M = 44.6, SD = 4.4) to post-intervention (M = 45.2, SD = 5.9) and a 

decrease in parents’ emotion dismissing attitudes and beliefs from pre-intervention (M = 41, SD 

= 5) to post-intervention (M = 35.9, SD = 5.5). Of note, the 4-point reduction of emotion 

dismissing beliefs from parents in the treatment group indicates greater improvement than a 1-

point increase for parents in the WLC group. A summary of group-level data and interaction 

effects is presented in Table 8. 

Research Question 2c. Is Tuning in to Kids effective in increasing Black parents’ use of 

positive emotion socialization practices (i.e., emotion-focused reactions, problem-focused 

reactions, expressive encouragement)? 

Statistical analyses indicated no statistically significant change in parents’ positive 

emotion socialization practices using the Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale. 

While no subscales demonstrated statistically significant changes, it is important to note a 

general increase in parents’ reported use of problem-focused reactions from pre-intervention (M 

= 5.5, SD = 0.6) to post-intervention (M = 5.7, SD = 0.6) to one-month follow-up (M = 5.7, SD = 

0.9) and expressive encouragement from pre-intervention (M = 4.9, SD = 1.1) to post-

intervention (M = 5.5, SD = 0.9). Parents also reported a general reduction in negative practices, 

57 

 
 
 
 
such as distressed reactions from pre-intervention (M = 4.0, SD = 0.8) to one-month follow-up 

(M = 3.2, SD = 0.9), punitive reactions from pre-intervention (M = 3.3, SD = 1.2) to post-

intervention (M = 2.7, SD = 1.4), and minimization reactions from pre-intervention (M = 3.1, SD 

= 1.1) to post-intervention (M = 2.9, SD = 1.5). Overall, parents in the treatment group reported 

greater changes in positive emotion socialization practices (i.e., problem-focused reactions and 

expressive encouragement) between pre- and post-intervention compared to parents in the WLC 

group. A summary of group-level data and interaction effects is presented in Table 8. 

Research Question 2d. Is Tuning in to Kids effective in indirectly improving children’s social-

emotional competence? 

DECA-P2 Total Protective Factors (TPF) T-scores, on average, slightly increased from 

pre-intervention (M = 28.0, SD = 0) to post-intervention (M = 29.7, SD = 2.7, range = 28-35) to 

one-month follow-up (M = 30.2, SD = 3.0, range = 28-37) for the TIK group. However, 

according to the DECA-P2 technical manual, this increase was not clinically significant (see 

Appendix B-Table 1 in LeBuffe & Naglieri, 2012). There was also improvement in the self-

regulation subscale of the DECA-P2 in both groups from pre-intervention (M = 47.3, SD = 6.4, 

range = 36 – 56) to one-month follow-up (M = 57.6, SD = 10.1, range = 40 – 72) for the TIK 

group and from pre-intervention (M = 49.7, SD = 8.4, range = 35 – 62) to one-month follow-up 

(M = 64.5, SD = 7.6, range = 50 – 72) for the WLC group, indicating greater improvement in 

self-regulation in the WLC than the TIK group. There was a substantial main effect of time on 

2
self-regulation at post-intervention, F = (2, 18) = 19.38, p < .000, 𝜂𝑝

 = .68, with both groups 

showing a statistically significant improvement in parent-reported self-regulation over time. A 

summary of group-level data and interaction effects is presented in Table 9. 

Research Question 3. Do Black parents find Tuning in to Kids an acceptable and feasible 

program? 

Yes, the average total score from the TEQ-P (M = 95.7, SD = 7.3) indicates overall 

moderate acceptability yet did not meet the threshold for high acceptability (i.e., 110) for the TIK 

group. One parent rated their acceptability as meeting the threshold for high acceptability, with a 

score of 111. Six parents’ acceptability ratings were slightly under the threshold (score ranges 

between 94 and 99), indicating moderate acceptability. Two parents’ acceptability ratings were 

considered adequate overall acceptability (84 and 89). Subscales on the TEQ-P of Acceptability 

(M = 52.3, SD = 4.5), Effectiveness (M = 34.5, SD = 4.5), and Time Required (M = 8.8, SD = 

58 

 
 
 
 
1.0), were compared to satisfactory average ratings of 55, 36, or 9, respectively. Three parents’ 

scores reached adequate acceptability (scores ranging from 55 to 59), four parents’ scores 

achieved adequate effectiveness (scores ranging from 36 to 44), and six parents’ scores reached 

adequate time required (scores ranging from 9 to 10). Overall, most parents found Tuning in to 

Kids an acceptable and feasible program. 

Qualitative Results 

Six parents from the TIK group participated in parent interviews. Of the remaining three 

parents, one canceled their interview and did not wish to reschedule, one did not respond to 

multiple attempts to schedule an interview, and the last parent did not attend four scheduled 

interviews, resulting in them not completing the interview. Analysis of the parent interviews 

yielded eight themes related broadly to intervention engagement and barriers, effectiveness (i.e., 

parenting practices and regulation, child behavior and regulation, parent-child relationship), 

acceptability (i.e., peer support), and perceptions of cultural and values-alignment of TIK for 

Black parents of preschoolers. To maintain the integrity of the parents’ responses and qualitative 

interviews, direct quotes were edited only for clarity (i.e., removing repeat words) and were cut 

for length.  

59 

 
 
 
Table 8. Baseline Comparisons and Interaction Effects Between Condition across Time Points on Parent Outcomes 

TIK Group (n = 9) 

WLC Group (n = 12) 

Pre 

Post 

F-up 

Pre 

Post 

F-up 

Interaction Effects 

Variable 

M (SD) 

M (SD) 

M (SD) 

M (SD) 

M (SD) 

M (SD) 

F 

p 

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale 

NER 

GDB 

ICD 

LEA 

14.6 (4.2) 

13.8 (5.2) 

12.4 (3.4) 

13.8 (5.9) 

14.1 (5.2) 

13.8 (5.3) 

0.99 

14.3 (6.1) 

15.2 (3.7) 

11.4 (2.7) 

12.5 (3.4) 

13.6 (2.8) 

12.6 (3) 

1.45 

14 (4.4) 

12.6 (4.6) 

11 (4.6) 

14.5 (4.9) 

14.2 (4.9) 

12.9 (5.7) 

0.30 

14 (3.4) 

13.7 (3.1) 

12 (3.5) 

15.2 (4.0) 

14.1 (3.1) 

14.1 (4.6) 

0.78 

LAERS 

20.8 (8.1) 

17.1 (5.2) 

16.6 (4.3) 

18.3 (6.0) 

17.3 (6.3) 

17.9 (6.1) 

0.93 

LEC 

Total 

11.2 (3.7) 

9.4 (3.4) 

10.9 (4.5) 

11.8 (3.4) 

10.8 (3.4) 

11 (3.7) 

0.45 

88.9 (23.4) 

81.8 (19.6) 

74.3 (18.6)  86.2 (21.4) 

84 (19.7) 

82.3 (23.8) 

0.76 

Parental Emotional Style Questionnaire 

EC 

ED 

44.6 (4.4) 

45.2 (5.9) 

45.0 (5.7) 

45.0 (6) 

45.0 (6.1) 

44.5 (8.8) 

41 (5.0) 

35.9 (5.5) 

37.1 (5.8) 

38.8 (7.6) 

38.3 (6) 

39.9 (7.6) 

Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale 

EFR 

PFR 

EE 

DR 

PR 

5.6 (0.7) 

5.0 (0.6) 

5.4 (0.7) 

5.3 (1.4) 

5.4 (1.2) 

5.4 (1.2) 

5.5 (0.6) 

5.7 (0.6) 

5.7 (0.9) 

5.2 (1.2) 

5.2 (1.1) 

5.3 (1.2) 

4.9 (1.1) 

5.5 (0.9) 

5.3 (1.0) 

4.5 (0.9) 

4.9 (0.9) 

4.9 (1.0) 

4.0 (0.8) 

3.2 (0.9) 

3.2 (0.9) 

3.2 (1.1) 

3.2 (1.0) 

3.0 (0.9) 

3.3 (1.2) 

2.7 (1.4) 

2.9 (1.1) 

3.7 (1.6) 

3.6 (2.0) 

3.7 (1.9) 

0.09 

2.11 

1.87 

0.19 

0.63 

1.32 

0.56 

.39 

.26 

.742 

.474 

.414 

.643 

.48 

.916 

.151 

.183 

.829 

.547 

.293 

.579 

2
𝜂𝑝

0.10 

0.14 

0.03 

0.08 

0.09 

0.05 

0.08 

0.01 

0.20 

0.17 

0.02 

0.07 

0.13 

0.06 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8. (cont’d) 

MR 

3.1 (1.1) 

2.9 (1.5) 

3.2 (1.2) 

3.8 (1.5) 

3.8 (1.7) 

3.8 (1.7) 

0.36 

.702 

0.04 

Note. NER = nonacceptance of emotional responses. GBD = difficulty engaging in goal-directed behavior. ICD = impulse control 

difficulties. LEA = lack of emotional awareness. LAERS = limited access to emotion regulation strategies. LEC = lack of emotional 

clarity. EFR = emotion-focused reactions. PFR = problem-focused reactions. EE = expressive encouragement. DR = distressed 

reactions. PR = punitive reactions. MR = minimization reactions. 

Table 9. Baseline Comparisons and Interaction Effects Between Condition across Time Points on Children’s Social-Emotional 
Competence T-Scores 

TIK Group (n = 9) 

WLC Group (n = 12) 

Pre 

Post 

F-up 

Pre 

Post 

F-up 

Interaction Effects 

Variable 

M (SD) 

M (SD) 

M (SD) 

M (SD) 

M (SD) 

M (SD) 

F 

p 

2
𝜂𝑝

TPF 

SR 

BC 

28.0 (0) 

29.7 (2.7) 

30.2 (3.0) 

28.0 (0) 

30.1 (1.8) 

30.9 (2.3) 

0.20 

.818 

0.02 

47.3 (6.4) 

55.8 (5.5) 

57.6 (10.1) 

49.8 (8.5) 

62.8 (7.2) 

64.5 (7.6) 

2.41 

.118 

0.21 

70.8 (2.3) 

69.2 (2.7) 

70 (2.1) 

70.8 (2.0) 

70.2 (2.1) 

70.3 (2.6) 

0.47 

.628 

0.02 

Attach 

50.4 (11.5) 

50.3 (13.3) 

56.3 (11.6) 

47 (12.4) 

51.7 (8.6) 

55.5 (9.6) 

0.64 

.533 

0.03 

Initiative 

54.4 (9.2) 

57.3 (7.2) 

55.3 (7.7) 

53.8 (9.0) 

57.7 (5.6) 

57.8 (7.3) 

0.35 

.709 

0.04 

Note. TPF = Total Protective Factors. SR = Self-Regulation. BC = Behavioral Concerns. Attach = Attachment/Relationships. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Intervention Engagement and Barriers 

Allowing facilitated discussions between parents in the program was noted as a key 

component of parents’ engagement during the virtually-delivered TIK program. For example, 

Parent 512 shared how important it was to discuss with the other parents outside of the lecture-

style content, stating, “I really liked more when we were bouncing ideas off of each other as 

parents more so than like the lecture style.” They appreciated the opportunity to have questions 

posed by the lead facilitator, which was flexible for “pulling from us as participants I felt when 

she was discussing new concepts or a strategy to approach and…there was definitely freedom I 

felt, if we did have a question about something.” Openness to participate flexibly facilitated 

discussions with parents in the group through multiple modes of communication (i.e., unmuting, 

typing in the chat, using Jamboard). On the other hand, when discussing the virtual nature of the 

program, this same parent noted that variability in other participants’ engagement impacted how 

they interacted with the material, asking, “How you could tell when people were really engaged, 

and certain people were engaged versus other parents where maybe they weren't.” 

Some parents noted difficulty integrating emotion coaching into their existing parenting 

practices because moving through the five steps felt unnatural, and they were nervous about their 

child’s reactions to a new parenting approach. Many parents expressed hesitancy in integrating a 

parenting practice with their children because they did not know how they would respond and in 

knowing how and when to use emotion coaching. Parent 521 shared, “So I think there was 

difficulty…knowing when to apply the method and how my kids will take it. If I didn't like apply 

the method,” which may indicate a need to provide live coaching opportunities with parents as 

they practice implementing the strategies with their children. 

Efficacy 

Parenting Practices and Beliefs. Parents shared how difficult it was to use emotion 

coaching in the beginning, and Parent 521 shared that “as time went by, I learned to apply 

coaching method only to instances that apply and to instances that would not apply, then I was 

forced to use methods that I know best.” Parent 522 noted how the emotion coaching method 

helps to correct their child and provide an alternate method of helping them problem-solve: 

And then so, I think the strategy in the intervention actually goes a long way in correcting 
some ways and in giving some extra insights on how to deal with problems occurring 
between parents and children and then the way we like educate them. 

62 

 
 
Several parents remarked that adults and parents tend to believe “they know best,” which 

can lead to misunderstandings between parents and their children. By attending to children’s 

emotions, parents recognized they were beginning to understand and seek their child’s 

perspective when emotions arose. Parent 521 said, “Because from a point where you want to 

understand where the kid is coming from, you also, as a parent, want to…ensure that you get the 

most out of the relationship.”  

While the program focuses on teaching children about their emotions and ways to 

regulate them, time was spent discussing how positive parental emotion regulation is key to 

effective emotion coaching. Several parents recognized a change in their abilities to regulate 

their emotions and how it impacts their parenting practices, using many relaxation strategies for 

themselves and their children. Parent 512 said: 

I am not 100% a different parent, but especially when, like, like, I think, in one group we 
talked about, like emotional regulation or whatever. So definitely, when I'm more 
regulated, and like when I feel like I'm more calm or able to be there for him. I'm 
definitely more clued in and using tips and tools provided versus just shooting him down.  

Parents expressed that emotions are okay and how this reframing of emotional expression 

has changed since completing TIK. Parent 523 shared, “It's okay for my kid to show all the 

emotion, despite being told, okay, pretend they're likely not to cry in front of other people. That 

it's fine if they show emotion.” Parent 512 shared how they are “normalizing a bit more of how 

he's feeling versus just being like, you're fine. Or, like, it's gonna be okay.” Parent 501 shared 

how they do not believe all people think emotions are acceptable and how important it is to 

explore emotions with their child.  

I don't think a lot of people know or think that having those emotions is okay. And I think 
that was important and just being okay with talking about their emotions, and then kind 
of just guiding them to letting them solve their problem. 

Child Behavior and Regulation. Parents noted that they recognized an improvement in 

their children’s ability to express their emotions and why they felt certain emotions. Parent 523 

mentioned, “After this program, I felt that my kid can be able to express themselves confidently 

in front of others. And again, it says that my kid could… open up more to me.” Parent 501 

further stated that their child was more comfortable expressing their emotions: 

I feel like he just was able to express himself more and tell about his emotions, he felt 
more comfortable talking about his emotions, and just kind of just feeling more so free to 
just, I guess, behave in a certain way. Just because he felt comfortable. 

63 

 
 
Parent 521 noted that their child appeared to regulate their emotions independently after 

being in this parenting program, and they had a better relationship with their emotions. She 

noted, “So I think it was okay. If I say, I think it taught my child the skills to kind of bond with 

their emotions.” Another parent shared how the program has “really been helping me and [my 

son] with his strong emotions or with his emotions, period. I don’t wanna call them strong, but 

just like with his emotions.” 

While reducing behavioral problems and concerns is not the primary target of TIK, 

parents indicated that they have seen a reduction in their child’s challenging behaviors. Parent 

526 talked about how they did not see much change at the beginning of the program, but 

“coming to the end of it, I noticed the change in their behavior, which was good, and it really 

made a difference.” On the other hand, Parent 501 shared that their child exhibited more 

challenging behaviors as a result of being more comfortable with expressing himself, stating that 

“it kind of backfires in that he does feel that comfort to kind of whine and kind of, you know, 

just kind of just feel more comfortable being upset more often.” 

Parent-Child Relationship. When parents had a better understanding of children’s range 

of emotions, they were better able to empathize with them. When asked how Parent 521 thought 

about how emotion dismissing was discussed, they shared how they were more empathetic using 

the emotion coaching model and empowering their child:  

So, it was beneficial to me, since I cultivated the skills of actively listening, empathetic 
responses, and I can now develop problem-solving strategies that would empower my 
child. Also, I think that they learn from me somehow to navigate in challenging situations 
and improving their confidence and resilience. 

Paired with increased empathy, parents acknowledged a greater intention to listen to their 

children rather than dismissing their emotions and perspectives. Parent 523 shared their 

experience learning that “I'd say that It's okay to listen to your kids. It's okay to give them a 

listening ear.” Parent 512 shared how they shifted from tuning out their child to providing more 

opportunities to listen to their child and prompt for more information: 

And before I would, like, seriously, tune him out at times. Like, I don't have time to listen 
to this like, we gotta go, we gotta do this. We got to do that. Or like, okay, yeah, 
whatever. But now, not all the time. But I will say there's been an increase of my 
listening, like really listening to what he's saying. And posing questions to him, or telling 
him, like, it's okay to feel that way or like, I imagine a lot of other kids are like, I felt that 
way. 

64 

 
 
All of these improvements in the parent-child relationship are reflected well in parents’ 

recognition of their child as a whole person. Several parents reflected on recognizing that they 

are not all-knowing beings in their relationships with their children. Parent 526 had an insight 

about how they had to challenge the notion that they are always right, sharing, “I know what is 

right and what is wrong as a parent, but I realize no, I'm not always right. And that children are 

people, too. And they should be listened to.” Similarly, parent 512 shared how children are not 

always treated like people with emotions in the same way as adults, stating  

And it's like a kid's a kid like, people, adults, we have emotions, how can you expect a 
kid to like not have emotions about things or to not feel things...I don't wanna say like 
robots or like, even possessions in a way. Like, they don't get to feel things…they're not 
allowed to be whole people. 

Acceptability 

Because of the virtual nature of the program delivery, the facilitators recorded each 

session and made the audio recordings available for parents to review after sessions or catch up 

on material they had missed. Parent 526 expressed how they used the recordings when “the time 

for the meetings coincided with a part-time job that I had. So I didn't manage to attend all of 

them. But I listened to the recordings that were sent.” Because each session built upon the last, 

parents could keep up with the material by listening to audio recordings and following the slides. 

Parents discussed their parenting approaches throughout the sessions before participating 

in the program. They described how the program helped provide alternative strategies to help 

support their child. Parent 501 shared about using the resources and strategies as a different way 

to parent their child and “offering different ways of how to handle their emotions themselves 

because he's more so kind of leaning on the support.” Parent 522 also shared that the program 

allowed parents to put their skills to use immediately rather than dragging them out. They shared 

that the strategies were presented “in such a way that I could put it into use, and then I know 

other participants will also be able to put the like strategy into use.”  

Parents appreciated the opportunity to practice the skills in small groups rather than 

listening to the sessions as lectures. Parents in the program could watch the facilitators role-play 

scenarios with direct scripts, and they had the opportunity to practice with scripts before moving 

to real-world examples from their lives to role-play the skills in real situations they have 

encountered with their children. Parent 523 shared that using breakout rooms helped separate 

from the larger group to practice role-playing, and “it was so engaging because in the breakout 

65 

 
 
 
 
rooms, you are able to get chances and pick out, rather act it out.” Parent 512 indicated, “I liked 

the role-playing that we were asked to do in the breakout rooms.” These role-plays allowed 

parents to practice their skills while receiving feedback and working through the discomfort 

using a new parenting approach. 

Several parents indicated appreciating the sense of community in a group with other 

parents experiencing similar challenges with their children. Parent 523 shared that they 

appreciated hearing from other parents with similar issues and experiences, stating that “the best 

part was being able to talk to the real people and getting to understand where they come from, 

about their experiences [with] their family.” It made the breakout rooms more enriching to 

bounce ideas for implementing the strategies in the real world with their children. Parent 512 

talked about their experience sharing strategies with other parents with similar experiences: 

I really appreciated when we were put into smaller groups. And I was getting to talk to 
other parents… remember, there was at least one gentleman who he also had an infant 
almost around the same age as my infant. And I felt like we really empathized well. And 
so together, we were talking about the strategies and doing things and like bouncing 
things off of each other. 

Toward the end of the program, time was spent discussing how parents can share the 

information they learned with their friends and family members who care for their children. The 

parents shared concerns about getting family members and their broader community on board 

with the emotion-coaching parenting approach. Several parents indicated how important this 

group was for them and their desire to share what they learned with others. Parent 512 shared 

how important it would be to share this information with other mothers in their community: 

But even sometimes in like, your friends groups, especially, you know, as a mom, you 
develop like mom friendships and you have those mom, you know, group chats and stuff 
going and it would be cool if like, within some of those, I could be like, hey, like, have 
you tried asking your kid this? 

Alignment with Culture and Values 

Throughout the program and parent interviews, participants shared how the program 

aligned with some of their parenting values. In their interviews, parents shared how TIK may 

differ from how they have done things, but the strategies align with how they have been trying to 

parent their children. Parent 522 shared, “I think it's aligned with my quality to some extent. And 

then it's added some…good instincts into me.” Other parents shared about how they have 

attended parenting classes in the past, and participating in TIK provided them another 

66 

 
 
opportunity to learn about strategies and approaches that align with their values. For example, 

parent 501 shared that “we have already been kind of taken steps and to parenting classes. And 

then when we, you know, kind of saw this program. We were, we were like, Yeah, we could 

really benefit from it.” 

Relatedly, some parents spoke about how the program doesn’t necessarily align with their 

parenting practices, but they see how the framework aligns with their values. Parent 521 shared 

their perspective using these strategies coming from an older generation with a different way of 

parenting: 

Um, I come from an older generation. So from what I will start from when I was talking 
about my parents, I wouldn't say I kind of think that the whole model was based on 
patience and listening, something that we weren't like quite used to. But as for me, I 
would like own them. Yeah. So I think they are aligned with me. 

A few parents talked about how this program allowed them to change their parenting and 

take a gentle approach. Parent 523, for example, said, "It's okay that I can still parent them 

gently, and they'll listen to me. Yeah. And I feel that with time, I'm achieving what I wanted 

instead of having something harsher.” Parent 512 elaborated on the broader focus for millennial 

parents to change the landscape of parenting in the future: 

A lot of us I see in our community, millennials, and people that are a little bit younger 
than millennials, are really trying to use tactics that are much more. I don't know if you 
want to call it gentle parenting…we're recognizing that the strategies that our parents 
used may not necessarily have been the most effective… I do feel like our generation is 
trying to break some of that, that resistance to like, emotions. 

One parent spoke to the realities and difficulties of raising Black children, specifically 

Black boys., sharing how Black children are perceived in society and how societal pressures 

influence parenting approaches. Parent 512 shared how this program helped them realize how 

Black males either hide their feelings or dismiss others: 

I thought about this more, especially by coming through this program, and raising Black 
boys like, then we get upset when we have like males walking around who dismiss other 
people's emotions or can't, put out there, how they're feeling. And so like, that's another 
reason why I've been huge on like him expressing himself because I'm like, I'm raising 
this Black boy who eventually one day will be somebody's partner. 

Some parents shared how family members are often confused or try to interject as they 

use emotion coaching with their children. Many parents shared frustration with implementing 

emotion coaching in their parenting due to the challenges of competing beliefs among members 

of their families and communities. Parent 501 shared that “I guess, you know, trying to just deal 

67 

 
 
with other people in their two cents and their own beliefs about how parenting should work how 

you should be caring for your child.” These parents share an appreciation for changing the 

narrative in parenting their children, as they see an opportunity to create healthier relationships 

with their children because “it was really shifting the mindset of what we've seen you in our 

household growing up, and how many of us parent based on how we grew up” (Parent 512).  

Lastly, parents were overwhelmingly positive about TIK’s existing curriculum and its 

sensitivity to individuals’ beliefs and values. The program’s flexibility in presenting material 

allows facilitators to present the information neutrally or within the context of specific cultures. 

Many parents shared the same sentiment as Parent 526, who stated, “I think it was best as it 

was.” Parent 522, for example, elaborated and shared: 

It was…presented in such a way that it doesn't bring about discrimination when it comes 
to like cultural values and stuff. So, because it's really set up in such a way that is neutral 
and in such a way that teach people and then it's actually aligned with positive value. 

68 

 
 
CHAPTER 5 

DISCUSSION 

Universal evidence-based interventions are those that are not only carried out as intended 

but also lead to the intended benefits and are found to be acceptable by their participants. This 

pilot study aimed to examine the fidelity, engagement, efficacy, and acceptability of the Tuning 

in to Kids parenting program within a group (N = 21) of Black, U.S.-based parents of 

preschoolers. Establishing evidence for using TIK in new contexts and with diverse parent 

populations is essential to determine its utility across cultures. A joint display in Table 10 

illustrates overall trends and connections between the quantitative and qualitative data collected 

from parents in the treatment group. 

Treatment Engagement and Fidelity 

Treatment engagement and fidelity are essential when examining an intervention’s 

efficacy because intervention outcomes should be interpreted cautiously if the intervention is not 

implemented as planned (Sanetti et al., 2021; Witt & Elliott, 1985). If low fidelity is reported 

with high effectiveness, researchers cannot demonstrate the intervention's effectiveness in a 

given study (Brown-Chidsey et al., 2008). The facilitator delivered TIK virtually with excellent 

fidelity and across sessions (ratings of 100% or higher), meeting the threshold of adequate 

fidelity with ratings of 80% or higher (Durlak & Dupre, 2008). Further, these fidelity scores are 

higher than the standard ratings of adequate fidelity and align with previous literature on in-

person TIK programs (Bølstad et al., 2021; Duncombe et al., 2016; Edrissi et al., 2019; 

Havighurst et al., 2010; Qiu & Shum, 2022; Wilson et al., 2012). Within the TIK literature, most 

of the research displays fidelity ratings above 90% within predominantly White samples (as seen 

in Table 1). Fidelity in this study of Black parents was 100% adherence by the facilitators in each 

session, with five of the six sessions exceeding 100% by including optional material presented in 

the manual (see Table 7). Further, these fidelity findings suggest that TIK can be delivered 

virtually with fidelity using videoconferencing platforms.  

In addition to fidelity ratings, attendance was taken per session to examine parent-level 

fidelity and engagement. Full completion of the TIK program is demonstrated by attending five 

or more sessions (Havighurst & Harley, 2007). Seventy-eight percent (7 out of 9) of parents 

physically attended five or more virtual sessions, less than the 80% of parents who completed 

TIK programs in previous literature (Havighurst et al., 2010, 2019; Wilson et al., 2016). This 

69 

 
 
 
 
rate, however, is consistent with, and exceeds, a previous examination of the Incredible Years 

Parenting program with a majority Black sample, with parents averaging 55% attendance across 

all sessions (Brotman et al., 2003). Parents were also allowed to listen to the audio recordings 

from previous sessions to catch up with any missed material, which counted toward parent 

attendance. Parents noted that the virtual sessions through Zoom helped accommodate schedules 

and reduced the need for childcare, transportation, or barriers related to COVID-19 restrictions 

or concerns (Chi & Demiris, 2015; Cook et al., 2021). Notable differences in outcomes from 

parents who attended fewer sessions are discussed in the relevant sections below.  

Delivering parenting groups virtually allowed parents to learn skills and tend to 

responsibilities without disrupting their schedules. The parent interviews support the importance 

of providing alternative options for parents who cannot consistently attend in-person parenting 

groups but still wish to learn the content. However, one parent noted how using a virtual 

platform makes it difficult to know when other participants are fully engaged. These adequate 

fidelity scores and attendance rates are promising for virtually delivered parenting programs that 

are used to reduce implementation barriers often common in group parenting programs (Cook et 

al., 2021). Specifically, this information can support continued examination of treatment 

adherence and overall attendance for Black parents participating in group-based parenting 

programs. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 10. Joint Display of Quantitative and Qualitative Results 
Quantitative Results 
Variable of 

Qualitative Results 

Exemplar Quotes 

Interest 

Attendance and 

7 of the 9 (78%) parents 

Parents shared how it was 

Engagement 

attended at least 5 

difficult to know when others 

sessions (indicating 

were engaged in the program 

adequate intervention 

content. Others expressed 

dosage) 

gratitude for being able to 

engage with other parents 

learning the new strategies 

from TIK. 

“How you could tell when people were really 
engaged,  
and certain people were engaged versus other 
parents where maybe they weren't.” 

“I really liked more when we were bouncing ideas 
off of each other as parents more so than like the 
lecture style.” 

Parental Emotion 

TIK parents reported 

Parents discussed how the 

Regulation 

fewer difficulties in 

program allowed them to 

overall ER, compared to 

better regulate their emotions 

WLC parents though not 

in response to their children’s 

statistically significant. 

difficult emotions. 

“[W]hen I'm more regulated, and like when I feel 
like I'm more calm or able to be there for him. I'm 
definitely more clued in and using tips and tools 
provided versus just shooting him down. 

Parents in both groups 

reported statistically 

significant fewer 

difficulties specifically 

in GDB and LEC. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 10. (cont’d) 

Emotion 

TIK parents reported an 

Parents recognized some 

Coaching and 

increase in EC 

difficulty in actively using the 

Emotion 

beliefs/practices and a 

emotion coaching framework 

Dismissing 

greater reduction of 

but shared fewer instances of 

emotion dismissing 

dismissing their children’s 

beliefs/practices, though 

emotions. 

not statistically different 

from the control group. 

“[A]s time went by, I learned to apply coaching 
method only to instances that apply and to 
instances that wouldn't apply, then I was forced to 
use methods that I know best.” 

“And before I would, like, seriously, tune him out 
at times. Like, I don't have time to listen to 
this...But now, not all the time. But I will say 
there's been an increase of my listening, like really 
listening to what he's saying.” 

Emotion 

TIK parents engaged in 

Parents reported taking more 

Socialization 

more PFR and greater 

time to listen to their children 

Practices 

EE than parents in the 

and help them problem-solve 

“And I think that was important and just being 
okay with talking about their emotions, and then 
kind of just guiding them to letting them solve their 
problem.” 

“So, it was beneficial to me, since I cultivated the 
skills of actively listening, empathetic responses, 
and I can now develop problem-solving strategies 
that would empower my child.” 

WLC group, though not 

rather than reacting harshly. 

statistically different. 

They spent more time 

Parents also reported 

allowing their children to 

fewer DR, MR, and PR 

process their emotions 

to their children’s 

compared to before being in 

negative emotions, 

TIK. 

though not statistically 

different. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 10. (cont’d) 

Children’s Social-

Parents reported overall 

Parents in the TIK group 

Emotional 

better social-emotional 

spoke to their children’s 

“[C]oming to the end of it, I noticed the change in 
their behavior, which was good, and it really made 
a difference.” 

Competence 

competence in the TIK 

ability to express their needs 

group, though not 

and emotions after using the 

statistically different 

emotion coaching framework. 

from the control group. 

Some parents shared that the 

Parents in both groups 

increase in emotion 

reported statistically 

expression came with more 

significant 

challenging behaviors. 

improvements in their 

children’s self-regulation 

throughout the study. 

Acceptability 

TIK parents reported 

Parents discussed concerns 

moderate acceptability. 

with the time necessary to 

Only 1 of the 9 (11%) 

participate in the program, 

parents indicated high 

while others shared that the 

acceptability. 

virtual delivery made it more  

accessible to meet other 

parents sharing similar 

experiences. 

73 

“I will say that the only thing that in a way seems 
like it kind of backfires is that he does feel that 
comfort to kind of whine and kind of, you know, 
just kind of just feel more comfortable being upset 
more often.” 

“[T]he time for the meetings coincided with a part-
time job that I had. So I didn't manage to attend all 
of them. But I listened to the recordings that were 
sent.” 

“[T]he best part was being able to talk to the real 
people and getting to understand where they come 
from, about their experiences [with] their family.” 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 10. (cont’d) 

Alignment with 

No Quantitative Data 

Parents shared how the 

Culture and 

Collected 

experience in TIK differed 

“[I]t was really shifting the mindset of what we've 
seen you in our household growing up, and how 
many of us parent based on how we grew up.” 

Values 

“It was laid down…presented in such a way that it 
doesn't bring about discrimination when it comes to 
like cultural values and stuff.” 

“I thought about this more, especially by coming 
through this program, and raising Black boys like, 
then we get upset when we have like males walking 
around who dismiss other people's emotions or 
can't, put out there, how they're feeling.” 

from how their communities 

and families view parenting. 

They appreciated the insight 

from the program as it 

aligned with their goals for 

future parenting. Parents also 

discussed how parenting 

Black children requires more 

thought in preparing them for 

the world. 

Note. ER = emotion regulation. EC = emotion coaching. GBD = difficulty engaging in goal-directed behavior. LEC = lack of 

emotional clarity. PFR = problem-focused reactions. EE = expressive encouragement. DR = distressed reactions. PR = punitive 

reactions. MR = minimization reactions. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Treatment Efficacy 

Parental Emotion Regulation 

While parental emotion regulation plays a key role in parenting practices and children’s 

emotion regulation (Bariola et al., 2011; Crandall et al., 2015; Dix, 1991; Morris et al., 2017), it 

is not well-studied within the parenting intervention literature. Previous literature suggests that 

TIK effectively improves parents’ emotion regulation in predominantly White samples 

(Havighurst et al., 2010, 2013). The current study's findings provided preliminary trend data to 

support TIK’s ability to impact parents’ difficulties with emotion regulation compared to parents 

in a WLC group. Total and subscale emotion regulation scores all demonstrated statistically non-

significant downward trends from pre-intervention to post-intervention for parents in the TIK 

group compared to the WLC group. Parents in the TIK group demonstrated either stable scores 

across time or reductions in difficulties with emotion regulation for Black parents, which adds to 

the literature addressing the bidirectional relationship between parental and child emotion 

regulation (Bariola et al., 2011). Across both groups, there was a significant main effect of time 

2
on parental changes in goal-directed behavior (𝜂𝑝

2
 = .33) and lack of emotional clarity (𝜂𝑝

 = .005) 

on the DERS, indicating large and small effect sizes, respectively. Because these changes were 

exhibited in both groups, this finding may indicate that parents’ access to the TIK program and 

The Emotionally Intelligent Child (Katz & Hadani, 2022) contributed to fewer difficulties in 

goal-directed behavior and greater emotional clarity.  

Another explanation for improvement in both groups is maturation. Further research is 

necessary to understand if this main effect of time may be best attributed to natural maturation in 

parents or the positive effects associated with accessing any type of parenting support resources. 

Researchers have demonstrated the bidirectional relationship within predominantly homogenous 

samples; however, the findings of the current study align with these previous findings, 

suggesting that Black parents’ emotion regulation can improve with direct programming (i.e., 

group intervention or bibliotherapy). Two parents in the treatment group unexpectedly reported 

increases in their difficulties in emotion regulation between pre- and post-test. One of those 

parents attended all six sessions while the other only attended two calling into question whether 

they received an adequate dosage of intervention. In sum, not all Black parents may see personal 

benefit to engaging with the TIK program 

75 

 
 
 
The parent interviews emphasize that parents recognized a change in their emotion 

regulation after participating in TIK, sharing that they took more time to check in with their 

emotions as they communicated with their children through emotion coaching. They recognized 

the importance of regulating themselves before attending to their child’s emotions, a critical step 

in emotion coaching. Parents’ personal reflections provide preliminary evidence supporting the 

need to investigate parental emotion regulation in Black parents. Black parents participating in 

TIK can benefit from the discussions around emotion regulation just as parents from previous 

examinations have (e.g., Havighurst et al., 2010, 2013). Additionally, this suggests that 

discussions and materials concerning emotion coaching and regulation can lead parents from a 

variety of backgrounds to reflect on their own emotional processes as they implement emotion 

coaching with their children. Morris and colleagues (2007) recognized the impact of parental 

characteristics such as reactivity and regulation on a child’s emotion regulation and adjustment. 

Parents in the present study acknowledged the direct impact of their emotion regulation on a 

change in parenting practices and greater attention to their child’s behavior and emotional 

processes. 

Parental Emotional Style 

Parents in the treatment group reported a slight statistically non-significant increase in 

parents’ ratings of emotion coaching styles and attitudes and a slight statistically non-significant 

decrease in emotion dismissing styles and attitudes compared to parents in the WLC group. This 

finding aligns with previous findings where parents did not report significant changes in emotion 

coaching (Havighurst et al., 2013, 2015, 2019; Wilson et al., 2016) after completing TIK. 

However, the results provide preliminary data to support TIK’s initial use to assist parents in 

integrating a new emotional approach to parenting compared to parents in the WLC group. These 

findings mirror those found in a previous study examining changes in emotion coaching and 

emotion dismissing in a sample of parents in the U.S. after completing the parent-administered 

adaptation called TIKOL (Williams & Carlson, 2023). A possible explanation for the similarities 

in these studies could be the assessment of skills in a similar sample of parents in the U.S. These 

results could be due to several possibilities. In the current study, the parents were recruited from 

an unstudied population of Black parents of preschoolers. These results support that TIK allows 

Black parents to use a new parenting style to engage with their children’s emotional reactions. 

Two parents in the treatment group indicated using less emotion coaching between pre- and post-

76 

 
 
 
 
test. These opposite outcomes could be due to many reasons, including the consideration that 

those two parents did not attend all six TIK sessions. 

Along with the promising results of the quantitative measures, parents reported in their 

interviews how they used emotion coaching more and felt themselves dismissing their child less, 

consistent with other emotion coaching programs (Coard et al., 2007; Porzig-Drummond et al., 

2014). They discussed how attending to their child’s emotions often reduced the typical 

behaviors they have seen in the past. Because emotion coaching is generally a practice employed 

by Black parents (Labella, 2018), these findings suggest that TIK could be an appropriate 

program to support parents from a strengths-based framework, continuing to build skills that 

have shown to be essential to Black parenting. In addition to these promising results, future 

investigations can assess whether cultural adaptations could further add to the content from a 

culturally specific approach by using examples that are specific and relevant to the parents in the 

group, such as using video materials with Black parents and incorporating emotion coaching in 

common situations that Black children and families often face (Coard et al., 2007).  

Parental Emotion Socialization Practices 

When assessing Black parents’ positive emotion socialization practices, there were 

statistically non-significant positive trends in parents’ reported problem-focused reactions and 

expressive encouragement from pre- to post-intervention for parents in the TIK group compared 

to those in the WLC group. There were also statistically non-significant reductions in negative 

emotion socialization practices (i.e., distressed emotions, punitive reactions, and minimizing 

reactions) for Black parents in the TIK group from pre- to post-intervention, which is consistent 

with other parenting programs in the literature (Coard et al., 2007; Porzig-Drummond et al., 

2014; Williams & Carlson, 2023). Aligning with previous TIK literature variable changes in 

parents’ emotion socialization practices have been measured using the Coping with Children’s 

Negative Emotions Scale across different parenting groups (Bjørk et al., 2022; Chan et al., 2021; 

Havighurst et al., 2004, 2019; Qiu & Shum, 2022; Wilson et al., 2016). While these results are 

non-significant, the greater magnitude of change demonstrated by parents in the TIK group 

provides preliminary evidence that TIK can influence Black parents’ emotion socialization 

practices. 

Black parents use a myriad of practices to parent their children, and those practices are 

generally dependent on the situation and the societal implications and potential consequences 

77 

 
 
 
(Leerkes & Bailes, 2019; McLoyd et al., 2019; Nelson et al., 2013; Nelson, Leerkes, et al., 

2012). Given the need to adjust parenting practices, binary terms such as “negative” and 

“positive” may not be appropriate in labeling parenting practices as they are often adaptive, 

especially for Black parents (McLoyd et al., 2019). Future parenting research should consider 

how using these binary terms can show prejudice toward different parent groups, such as Black 

parents, who are often positioned as using “negative” parenting practices. To further support 

TIK’s use with Black parents, future examinations may consider if culturally adapting the 

program to address using emotion coaching to help navigate systemic barriers may be even more 

effective for Black parents (Dunbar et al., 2015, 2022). 

Expressive encouragement and problem-focused reactions are directly taught in TIK, 

suggesting that the improvements may be due to direct instruction in the program curriculum. 

These positive changes in parents’ reported practices align with other emotion-focused programs 

(Brotman et al., 2003; Chronis-Tuscano et al., 2016) and other examinations of Black parents’ 

existing parenting practices, as emotional expression is a pertinent element of African American 

culture (Boykin & Toms, 1985; Garrett-Peters et al., 2011; McLoyd et al., 2019). Parents 

reported improvements in open communication with their children during the parent interviews. 

This may be due to the focus on allowing children to sit in the emotions they feel rather than 

dismissing them. Parents also indicated that their children expressed their emotions more and 

tried to be more descriptive as they talked about their emotional reactions to situations. Emotion-

focused reactions, however, are related directly to the emotion coaching instruction in the 

program. The increase in reported emotion-focused reactions between post-intervention and the 

one-month follow-up may indicate that Black parents need more time to integrate emotion-

focused reactions into their parenting styles in addition to problem-focused reactions. Greater 

changes may be explored in allowing Black parents to practice using the skills with their children 

in addition to the role play opportunities in the TIK program. 

Children’s Social-Emotional Competence and Behaviors 

There was a slight statistically non-significant improvement in parent-reports of their 

children’s Total Protective Factors for parents in the TIK group and a statistically significant 

main effect of time of their children’s self-regulation for parents in both groups. According to the 

DECA-P2 manual (LeBuffe & Naglieri, 2012), neither of those improvements are deemed 

clinically significant; however, this finding is important to provide preliminary information to 

78 

 
 
 
support TIK as an indirect means to improve children’s overall social-emotional competence 

(i.e., TPF scores). Because children were not active participants in TIK, it is difficult to 

determine if behavioral changes resulted from their parent’s involvement in the program or 

external factors. Additionally, the main effect of time on children’s self-regulation in both groups 

2
(𝜂𝑝

 = .68) may indicate natural maturation as children get older and are better able to regulate 

their emotions and behavior. This large effect size suggests that regardless of the parents’ 

assigned group, children may naturally experience improvements in self-regulation over time. 

This main effect may also be due to parents in both groups having access to parenting resources 

(i.e., TIK and The Emotionally Intelligent Child) throughout the study. According to parent 

reports in the interviews, several parents indicated that they saw positive improvements in their 

children’s challenging behaviors and an acknowledgment of their children learning from their 

parents’ use of emotion coaching strategies. Previous literature demonstrates children's 

improvements in emotional competence and emotion labeling when directly involved in 

parenting programs (Brotman et al., 2003; Chronis-Tuscano et al., 2016; Porzig-Drummond et 

al., 2014; Salmon et al., 2014).  

Parents’ involvement in TIK appears to be associated with greater emotional 

understanding for young children (Bjørk et al., 2022) and reduced problematic behavior (Qiu & 

Shum, 2022) compared to children with parents in a control group. Parents reported noticeable 

changes in their children’s behavior following their involvement in the program. This indicates a 

promise for parents to see a change in their child’s challenging behaviors due to their increased 

use of emotion coaching. Additionally, parents shared in their interviews how the program has 

helped their children learn to calm themselves. One parent did share that as their child became 

more comfortable expressing their emotions, they began to act out more in public, which may 

speak to the improved emotion expression but continued difficulties with behavioral challenges. 

Because of the variability in parent-reported changes in children’s behavior, additional research 

should examine how involvement in an emotion-focused parenting program can lead to 

improvements in children’s behaviors (Coard et al., 2007). The results of the current study 

suggest that children do not need to be directly involved in parenting programs to benefit from 

them. Further investigation and longitudinal data may help determine the longevity of behavioral 

changes and address how children with greater challenging behaviors continue to respond to 

their parents’ new style.  

79 

 
 
 
Treatment Acceptability 

Similar to previous TIK findings, parents rated the program as highly acceptable and 

were amenable to using the strategies in their parenting despite some misalignment with previous 

parenting practices. One of the greatest strengths of TIK was the ability to help parents reframe 

their parenting beliefs and make a shift to healthier and more positive methods of parenting, 

which is consistent with other qualitative evaluations of parenting programs (Coard et al., 2007; 

Kohl & Seay, 2015). Specifically, this is similar to Hernandez and colleagues’ (2020) 

examination of TIK in a rural community in the U.S. One parent in the treatment group only 

attended two parent sessions, and they indicated the lowest acceptability rating (89.0), 

demonstrating adequate acceptability. This parent also indicated a change in emotion regulation 

opposite of the intended effect, which may have contributed to their lower acceptability rating 

compared to parents with higher ratings and higher attendance.  

Parents in both studies emphasized some initial resistance to the strategies taught but 

were able to recognize the benefits of reframing their beliefs to adopt emotion coaching within 

their parenting practices (Hernandez et al., 2020). Like other evaluations of parenting programs, 

parents reported how pleased they were with the program and their desire to share the 

information they learned with family and friends (Coard et al., 2007). Lastly, parents were 

overwhelmingly vocal about the importance of peer support from other parents in the program, 

even expressing a desire for more peer engagement throughout the program. Creating a positive 

learning community filled with other parents enhanced their ability to glean pertinent 

information from the program by acting as peer support and peer models during parenting 

sessions (Kane et al., 2007; Wright, 2015). Black parents can benefit from the virtual delivery of 

TIK; however, future examinations of the virtual delivery of the program may require 

participants to leave their cameras on throughout the sessions to foster a more cohesive learning 

community and better assess individual engagement outside of attendance and parent report. This 

data emphasizes how parent engagement and fidelity can contribute to efficacy and acceptability 

outcomes. 

Limitations 

The present study is limited by several factors, including (a) attrition and small sample 

size, (b) parent self-report, (c) generalizability of results, and (d) technological challenges. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
Attrition and Small Sample Size 

One limitation of this study is the combination of attrition and a small sample, with three 

out of 21 (14%) parents dropping out after enrolling. While losing 14% of participants may seem 

minor, losing those parents in an already small sample size may have contributed to the lack of 

power in the quantitative data with the final count of participants (N = 21). Eight participants did 

not complete the study components and were either dropped or self-eliminated due to incomplete 

pre data. Six participants did not respond to communication to complete the pre-survey before 

starting the program, and two participants dropped out of the study due to scheduling conflicts. 

Researchers identify time, motivation, and difficulties with employment and transportation as 

reasons participants may drop out of intervention studies (Chi & Demiris, 2015), especially 

during a pandemic (Cook et al., 2021). This attrition rate may give insight into difficulties in 

implementation success in real-world settings for parents despite the virtual online therapy 

approach which was hoped to promote accessibility.  

While the current research is a pilot study and the quantitative results were trending in the 

anticipated direction, the sample (N = 21) may be too small to statistically determine how 

effective this program is for parents in real-world settings and may have underpowered the 

analysis results, which may risk a Type II error (Serdar et al., 2021). Future research should 

engage in effectiveness trials with larger samples in community and clinical settings to determine 

how likely parents are to drop out of these programs and address barriers to completion, which 

may further support the promising preliminary data in the current study. Additionally, due to the 

small sample and even smaller sample of parents completing parent interviews, the rigor of 

qualitative methods was limited to more exploratory procedures. With a larger sample of 

interviews specifically, future examinations should consider employing more rigorous qualitative 

methodology, such as data-checking with participants, incorporating an iterative process in data 

planning and analyses, and engage in a triangulation framework to better establish validity of 

interpretation between quantitative and qualitative data. 

Parent Self-Report 

Another limitation is using parent reports for all outcome measures instead of multiple 

data collection methods. Because parents completed surveys several times, they may have 

responded with socially desirable responses, wishing to present themselves positively. In 

addition to responding positively, parents in the treatment group may have responded in ways 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
that align with the content of the parenting program and may not accurately represent their 

behaviors and attitudes. Future research should consider using observational data to measure 

parents’ use of emotion coaching and children’s behavior. It would be important to employ 

multiple raters to ensure inter-rater reliability. Using multiple methods to measure parent and 

child outcomes will strengthen data collection and analyses in future research. 

Generalizability of Results 

Because of the small, homogenous sample size, it would be difficult to generalize this 

data to Black parents with different backgrounds. For example, 95% of the parents in this study 

identified as African American, which may help examine the effectiveness for African American 

parents; however, Black parents represent many ethnicities within the African diaspora. Most 

participating parents had some college experience, making this a generally more educated 

sample. These results may not generalize to parents with less education and should be interpreted 

cautiously. 

Technological Challenges 

While technology served as an asset for parents participating in the study, there were 

notable challenges with recruiting participants through email contacts, social media, and other 

media-related recruitment efforts. Because recruitment was conducted solely online and through 

personal contacts, there was an influx of responses to the study screener, resulting in duplicate or 

bot responses. Using an online survey tool, such as QualtricsXM, provides an easy method of 

data collection and allows for internal bot detection. However, using an online tool such as this 

opens the door for fabricated responses, especially when incentives are available in exchange for 

participation. In the future, it may be helpful to limit exposure to broader social media 

recruitment efforts and recruit directly from community centers and local clinics. 

Implications for Research 

This research was conducted to add to the parenting intervention literature, specifically in 

emotion-focused programs for Black parents in the United States. This study presented 

promising findings related to the fidelity, engagement, efficacy, and acceptability of the TIK 

program for a new, understudied sample of Black, U.S.-based parents. The results of this study 

build upon the vast research examining the effectiveness of TIK and other emotion-focused 

parenting programs. This is the first study to evaluate TIK with a Black sample and to provide 

mixed-methods data using TIK in the U.S. As parenting literature grows, it is critical to examine 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
parenting programs and their utility for parents from diverse backgrounds. The literature on 

emotion-focused parenting programs is conducted with primarily White samples; thus, it is 

essential to examine their effectiveness with parents and caregivers from marginalized 

backgrounds. 

Additional research is needed to understand treatment fidelity and engagement for 

parenting programs delivered through virtual means, given the barriers to access to treatment for 

parents. Given the technological age and future advancements, virtually delivered programs 

provide a gateway to accessing effective programs for parents and caregivers to help them best 

support their children. This study gathered treatment fidelity from the program facilitator and 

engagement data via parent attendance throughout the program. Future research should continue 

to examine the utility of delivering effective parenting programs virtually and assessing parent 

fidelity between sessions (e.g., homework). 

Finally, the qualitative interviews provide an additional lens to examine parents’ 

experiences with the TIK program. Quantitative data suggests that the program effectively 

improved parents’ use of emotion coaching and children’s emotional competence within this 

small sample. Still, the qualitative interviews provide a fresh perspective beyond the typical 

quantitative approach, allowing parents to speak directly about their experiences in the program. 

Black parents in this study shared which program components were most helpful and how certain 

parts did not align with their parenting ideologies. These findings extend the qualitative research 

of TIK collected in a rural Appalachian region of the U.S. (Hernandez et al., 2020), suggesting 

that qualitative data is essential to fully understanding parents’ experiences in TIK and other 

parenting programs. Future research should consider collecting qualitative data to include the 

parent voice in research findings and improve researchers’ understanding of program 

acceptability across diverse cultures. 

Implications for Practice 

Many parenting programs focus on behavior management, and TIK provides an 

alternative pathway for supporting parents while engaging in psychoeducation about children’s 

social and emotional development. Clinicians may consider facilitating these groups in 

community or clinical settings to help parents and caregivers better understand their children’s 

emotional development when behavior is not the primary concern for a child.  

83 

 
 
 
 
 
The qualitative data collected in this study sets the stage for clinical implications related 

to adapting TIK to fit the parents' needs best. One consideration for using TIK is to use the 

flexible nature of the manual to adapt the content to fit parents’ needs. Generally, parents 

reported that TIK was sensitive to their cultural beliefs; however, future examinations should 

consider creating and using visual materials (e.g., handouts, video scenarios) with parents from 

diverse backgrounds to help make the information more relatable for parents (Kohl & Seay, 

2015). 

Conclusion 

This study used a mixed-method, randomized-waitlist control trial to assess the fidelity, 

efficacy, and acceptability of the Tuning in to Kids parenting program for Black parents of 

preschoolers. The results of this study indicated that TIK had high facilitator fidelity, parent-

reported engagement, and adequate attendance; however, quantitative outcome data does not 

reflect a significant improvement in parental emotion regulation, use of emotion coaching 

principles and positive parenting practices, and children’s emotional competence and self-

regulation. Quantitative outcomes exhibited trends in the intended direction; however, further 

investigations are needed to assess the extent of effectiveness of TIK in a larger sample of Black 

parents. Qualitative data, however, suggests that TIK positively impacted Black parents’ emotion 

socialization practices and beliefs. These findings add to the TIK literature by assessing the 

program's efficacy in a new sample of Black parents in the United States, demonstrating similar 

findings for parents and children in prior literature. This study also adds to the literature 

examining the effectiveness and utility of virtually delivered parenting programs by providing 

further evidence supporting their utility and reducing access barriers. 

84 

 
 
 
 
REFERENCES 

Aghaie Meybodi, F., Mohammadkhani, P., Pourshahbaz, A., Dolatshahi, B., & Havighurst, S. S. 

(2019). Improving parent emotion socialization practices: Piloting Tuning in to Kids in 
Iran for children with disruptive behavior problems. Family Relations, 68(5), 596–607. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12387 

Ainsworth, M. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709–716. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.4.709 

American Psychological Association. (2002). Criteria for evaluating treatment guidelines. 

American Psychologist, 57, 1052–1059. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1052 

American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. 

(2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61(4), 271–285. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.271 

Anderson, R. E., McKenny, M. C., & Stevenson, H. C. (2019). EMBRace: Developing a racial 
socialization intervention to reduce racial stress and enhance racial coping among Black 
parents and adolescents. Family Process, 58(1), 53–67. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12412 

Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). General Learning Press. 

Bariola, E., Gullone, E., & Hughes, E. K. (2011). Child and adolescent emotion regulation: The 

role of parental emotion regulation and expression. Clinical Child and Family 
Psychology Review, 14(2), 198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-011-0092-5 

Barton, E. E., Steed, E. A., Strain, P., & Dunlap, G. (2014). An analysis of classroom-based and 
parent-focused social–emotional programs for young children. Infants and Young 
Children, 27(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000001 

Bjørk, R. F., Bølstad, E., Pons, F., & Havighurst, S. S. (2022). Testing TIK (Tuning in to Kids) 

with TEC (Test of Emotion Comprehension): Does enhanced emotion socialization 
improve child emotion understanding? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 
78, 101368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101368 

Bocknek, E. L., Brophy-Herb, H. E., & Banerjee, M. (2009). Effects of parental supportiveness 
on toddlers’ emotion regulation over the first three years of life in a low-income African 
American sample. Infant Mental Health Journal, 30(5), 452–476. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.20224 

Bølstad, E., Havighurst, S. S., Tamnes, C. K., Nygaard, E., Bjørk, R. F., Stavrinou, M., & 

Espeseth, T. (2021). A pilot study of a parent emotion socialization intervention: Impact 
on parent behavior, child self-regulation, and adjustment. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 
730278–730278. PubMed. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.730278 

85 

 
 
Bowen, D. J., Kreuter, M., Spring, B., Cofta-Woerpel, L., Linnan, L., Weiner, D., Bakken, S., 
Kaplan, C. P., Squiers, L., Fabrizio, C., & Fernandez, M. (2009). How we design 
feasibility studies. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(5), 452–457. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002 

Bowie, B. H., Carrère, S., Cooke, C., Valdivia, G., McAllister, B., & Doohan, E.-A. (2013). The 

role of culture in parents’ socialization of children’s emotional development. Western 
Journal of Nursing Research, 35(4), 514–533. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945911411494 

Boykin, A. W., & Toms, F. D. (1985). Black child socialization: A conceptual framework. In H. 

P. McAdoo & J. L. McAdoo (Eds.), Black children: Social, educational, and parental 
environments. (pp. 33–51). Sage Publications, Inc. 

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In APA handbook of research methods in 

psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and 
biological. (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004 

Breaux, R., Lewis, J., Cash, A. R., Shroff, D. M., Burkhouse, K. L., & Kujawa, A. (2022). Parent 

emotion socialization and positive emotions in child and adolescent clinical samples: A 
systematic review and call to action. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 
25(1), 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-022-00388-2 

Breitenstein, S. M., Gross, D., & Christophersen, R. (2014). Digital delivery methods of 

parenting training interventions: A systematic review. Worldviews on Evidence-Based 
Nursing, 11(3), 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12040 

Brophy-Herb, H. E., Dalimonte-Merckling, D., Senehi, N., & Kwon, A. Y. (2016). The role of 

emotion socialization in promoting child flourishing. In D. Narvaez, J. M. Braungart-
Rieker, L. E. Miller-Graff, L. T. Gettler, & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Contexts for young 
child flourishing: Evolution, family, and society (pp. 79–100). 

Brotman, L. M., Klein, R. G., Kamboukos, D., Brown, E. J., Coard, S. I., & Sosinsky, L. S. 

(2003). Preventive intervention for urban, low-income preschoolers at familial risk for 
conduct problems: A randomized pilot study. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent 
Psychology, 32(2), 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3202_10 

Brown-Chidsey, R., Steege, M. W., & Mace, F. C. (2008). Best practices in evaluating the 

effectiveness of interventions using case study data. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), 
Best Practices in School Psychology V (Vol. 6, pp. 2177–2191). National Association of 
School Psychologists. 

Buckholdt, K. E., Parra, G. R., & Jobe-Shields, L. (2014). Intergenerational transmission of 

emotion dysregulation through parental invalidation of emotions: Implications for 
adolescent internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Journal of Child and Family 
Studies, 23(2), 324–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9768-4 

86 

 
 
Chan, R. F.-Y., Qiu, C., & Shum, K. K. (2021). Tuning in to Kids: A randomized controlled trial 

of an emotion coaching parenting program for Chinese parents in Hong Kong. 
Developmental Psychology, 57(11), 1796–1809. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001258 

Chi, N.-C., & Demiris, G. (2015). A systematic review of telehealth tools and interventions to 
support family caregivers. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 21(1), 37–44. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X14562734 

Chronis-Tuscano, A., Lewis-Morrarty, E., Woods, K. E., O’Brien, K. A., Mazursky-Horowitz, 
H., & Thomas, S. R. (2016). Parent–child interaction therapy with emotion coaching for 
preschoolers with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Cognitive and Behavioral 
Practice, 23(1), 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2014.11.001 

Coard, S. I., Foy-Watson, S., Zimmer, C., & Wallace, A. (2007). Considering Culturally 

Relevant Parenting Practices in Intervention Development and Adaptation: A 
Randomized Controlled Trial of the Black Parenting Strengths and Strategies (BPSS) 
Program. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(6), 797–820. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000007304592 

Cook, A., Bragg, J., & Reay, R. E. (2021). Pivot to telehealth: Narrative reflections on Circle of 

Security parenting groups during COVID-19. Australian and New Zealand Journal of 
Family Therapy, 42(1), 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/anzf.1443 

Crandall, A., Deater-Deckard, K., & Riley, A. W. (2015). Maternal emotion and cognitive 

control capacities and parenting: A conceptual framework. Developmental Review, 36, 
105–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.01.004 

Criss, S., Grant, L., Henderson, N., Sease, K., Fumo, M., & Stetler, C. (2021). Changing 

attitudes about spanking: A mixed-methods study of a positive parenting intervention. 
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30(10), 2504–2515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-
021-02039-6 

de Graaf, I., Speetjens, P., Smit, F., de Wolff, M., & Tavecchio, L. (2008). Effectiveness of the 

Triple P Positive Parenting Program on behavioral problems in children: A meta-analysis. 
Behavior Modification, 32(5), 714–735. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445508317134 

Delahooke, M. (2017). Building the house of social and emotional development. In T. Fields-

Meyer (Ed.), Social and emotional development in early intervention: A skills guide for 
working with children (pp. 75–86). PESI Publishing & Media. 

Denham, S. A. (2006). Social-emotional competence as support for school readiness: What is it 

and how do we assess it? Early Education & Development, 17(1), 57–89. 
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1701_4 

Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. H., & Wyatt, T. (2015). The socialization of emotional competence. 
In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research 
(2nd ed., pp. 590–613). Guilford Press. 

87 

 
 
Denham, S. A., Mitchell-Copeland, J., Strandberg, K., Auerbach, S., & Blair, K. (1997). Parental 
contributions to preschoolers’ emotional competence: Direct and indirect effects. 
Motivation and Emotion, 21(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024426431247 

Dix, T. (1991). The affective organization of parenting: Adaptive and maladaptive processes. 
Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.3 

Dumas, J. E., Nissley-Tsiopinis, J., & Moreland, A. D. (2007). From intent to enrollment, 

attendance, and participation in preventive parenting groups. Journal of Child and Family 
Studies, 16(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-006-9042-0 

Dunbar, A. S., Leerkes, E. M., Coard, S. I., Supple, A. J., & Calkins, S. (2017). An integrative 
conceptual model of parental racial/ethnic and emotion socialization and links to 
children’s social-emotional development among African American families. Child 
Development Perspectives, 11(1), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12218 

Dunbar, A. S., Perry, N. B., Cavanaugh, A. M., & Leerkes, E. M. (2015). African American 

parents’ racial and emotion socialization profiles and young adults’ emotional adaptation. 
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(3), 409–419. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037546 

Dunbar, A. S., Zeytinoglu, S., & Leerkes, E. M. (2022). When is parental suppression of Black 
children’s negative emotions adaptive? The role of preparation for racial bias and 
children’s resting cardiac vagal tone. Research on Child and Adolescent 
Psychopathology, 50(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-021-00779-z 

Duncombe, M. E., Havighurst, S. S., Kehoe, C. E., Holland, K. A., Frankling, E. J., & Stargatt, 

R. (2016). Comparing an emotion- and a behavior-focused parenting program as part of a 
multisystemic intervention for child conduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child and 
Adolescent Psychology, 45(3), 320–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2014.963855 

Dunsmore, J. C., Booker, J. A., & Ollendick, T. H. (2013). Parental emotion coaching and child 
emotion regulation as protective factors for children with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. 
Social Development, 22(3), 444–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2011.00652.x 

Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the 
influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting 
implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3), 327. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0 

Edrissi, F., Havighurst, S. S., Aghebati, A., Habibi, M., & Arani, A. M. (2019). A pilot study of 
the Tuning in to Kids parenting program in Iran for reducing preschool children’s 
anxiety. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(6), 1695–1702. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01400-0 

Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental socialization of emotion. 
Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 241–273. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0904_1 

88 

 
 
Eisenberg, N., Gershoff, E. T., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Cumberland, A. J., Losoya, S. H., 
Guthrie, I. K., & Murphy, B. C. (2001). Mother’s emotional expressivity and children’s 
behavior problems and social competence: Mediation through children’s regulation. 
Developmental Psychology, 37(4), 475–490. https://doi-
org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/10.1037/0012-1649.37.4.475 

Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Cumberland, A. (1998). The socialization of emotion: Reply to 

commentaries. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 317–333. 
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0904_17 

Ellis, B. H., Alisic, E., Reiss, A., Dishion, T., & Fisher, P. A. (2014). Emotion regulation among 
preschoolers on a continuum of risk: The role of maternal emotion coaching. Journal of 
Child and Family Studies, 23(6), 965–974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9752-z 

England-Mason, G., & Gonzalez, A. (2020). Intervening to shape children’s emotion regulation: 
A review of emotion socialization parenting programs for young children. Emotion, 
20(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000638 

Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., & Bernzweig, J. (1990). The Coping with Children’s Negative 

Emotions Scale: Procedures and scoring. Arizona State University. 

Fabes, R. A., Poulin, R. E., Eisenberg, N., & Madden-Derdich, D. A. (2002). The Coping with 

Children’s Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES): Psychometric properties and relations 
with children’s emotional competence. Marriage & Family Review, 34(3–4), 285–310. 
https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v34n03_05 

Fisher, P. A., & Skowron, E. A. (2017). Social-learning parenting intervention research in the era 

of translational neuroscience. Parenting, 15, 168–173. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.02.017 

Forehand, R., & Long, N. (2002). Parenting the strong-willed child: The clinically proven five-

week program for parents of two- to six-year-olds (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill. 

Garber, J., Braafladt, N., & Zeman, J. (1991). The regulation of sad affect: An information-

processing perspective. In J. Garber & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), The development of emotion 
regulation and dysregulation. (pp. 208–240). Cambridge University Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663963.011 

Garcia, A. R., DeNard, C., Ohene, S., Morones, S. M., & Connaughton, C. (2018). “I am more 
than my past”: Parents’ attitudes and perceptions of the Positive Parenting Program in 
Child Welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 286–297. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.03.023 

Garner, P. W. (2006). Prediction of prosocial and emotional competence from maternal behavior 

in African American preschoolers. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 
12(2), 179–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.12.2.179 

89 

 
 
Garrett-Peters, P., Mills-Koonce, R., Zerwas, S., Cox, M., Vernon-Feagans, L., & The Family 
Life Project Key Investigators. (2011). Fathers’ early emotion talk: Associations with 
income, ethnicity, and family factors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(2), 335–353. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00810.x 

Gohm, C. L., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Four latent traits of emotional experience and their 

involvement in well-being, coping, and attributional style. Cognition and Emotion, 16(4), 
495–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930143000374 

Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1996). Parental meta-emotion philosophy and the 
emotional life of families: Theoretical models and preliminary data. Journal of Family 
Psychology, 10(3), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.10.3.243 

Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion: How families communicate 

emotionally. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 

Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and 

dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the Difficulties in 
Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 
26(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94 

Graves, S. L., Phillips, S., Jones, M., & Johnson, K. (2021). A systematic review of the What 
Works Clearinghouse’s behavioral intervention evidence: Does it relate to Black 
children. Psychology in the Schools, 58(6), 1026–1040. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22485 

Gus, L., Rose, J., & Gilbert, L. (2015). Emotion coaching: A universal strategy for supporting 

and promoting sustainable emotional and behavioural well-being. Educational and Child 
Psychology, 32(1), 31–41. 

Hajal, N. J., & Paley, B. (2020). Parental emotion and emotion regulation: A critical target of 

study for research and intervention to promote child emotion socialization. 
Developmental Psychology, 56(3), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000864 

Halberstadt, A. G., Denham, S. A., & Dunsmore, J. C. (2001). Affective social competence. 

Social Development, 10(1), 79–119. 

Hassan, Z. A., Schattner, P., & Mazza, D. (2006). Doing a pilot study: Why is it essential? 

Malaysian Family Physician: The Official Journal of the Academy of Family Physicians 
of Malaysia, 1(2–3), 70–73. 

Havighurst, S. S., Duncombe, M., Frankling, E., Holland, K., Kehoe, C., & Stargatt, R. (2015). 

An emotion-focused early intervention for children with emerging conduct problems. 
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(4), 749–760. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-9944-z 

Havighurst, S. S., & Harley, A. (2007). Tuning in to Kids: Emotionally Intelligent Parenting. 

University of Melbourne. https://tuningintokids.org.au/ 

90 

 
 
Havighurst, S. S., Harley, A., & Prior, M. (2004). Building preschool children’s emotional 

competence: A parenting program. Early Education and Development, 15(4), 423–448. 
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1504_5 

Havighurst, S. S., & Kehoe, C. (2017). The role of parental emotion regulation in parent emotion 
socialization: Implications for intervention. In K. Deater-Deckard & R. Panneton (Eds.), 
Parental Stress and Early Child Development: Adaptive and Maladaptive Outcomes (pp. 
285–307). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55376-
4_12 

Havighurst, S. S., Wilson, K. R., Harley, A. E., & Kehoe, C. E. (2019). Dads Tuning in to Kids: 
A randomized controlled trial of an emotion socialization parenting program for fathers. 
Social Development, 28(4), 979–997. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12375 

Havighurst, S. S., Wilson, K. R., Harley, A. E., Kehoe, C., Efron, D., & Prior, M. R. (2013). 
“Tuning into Kids”: Reducing young children’s behavior problems using an emotion 
coaching parenting program. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev, 44(2), 247–264. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-012-0322-1 

Havighurst, S. S., Wilson, K. R., Harley, A. E., & Prior, M. R. (2009). Tuning in to Kids: An 

emotion‐focused parenting program—Initial findings from a community trial. Journal of 
Community Psychology, 37(8), 1008–1023. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20345 

Havighurst, S. S., Wilson, K. R., Harley, A. E., Prior, M. R., & Kehoe, C. (2010). Tuning in to 

Kids: Improving emotion socialization practices in parents of preschool children-findings 
from a community trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(12), 1342–1350. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02303.x 

Herman, K. C., Borden, L. A., Reinke, W. M., & Webster-Stratton, C. (2011). The impact of the 
Incredible Years parent, child, and teacher training programs on children’s co-occurring 
internalizing symptoms. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(3), 189–201. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025228 

Hernandez, E., Carmichael, K., Satterwhite, E., Yanuaria, C., & Dunsmore, J. C. (2020). “Lots of 
prayer, lots of emotional coaching, and pray it works out the best”: Tuning in to Kids in a 
rural Appalachian community. Journal of Rural Mental Health, 44(3), 184–204. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/rmh0000135 

In, J. (2017). Introduction of a pilot study. Kja, 70(6), 601–605. 

https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2017.70.6.601 

Jafar, A. J. N. (2018). What is positionality and should it be expressed in quantitative studies? 

Emergency Medicine Journal, 35(5), 323. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2017-207158 

Kaiser, K., Villalobos, M. E., Locke, J., Iruka, I. U., Proctor, C., & Boyd, B. (2022). A culturally 

grounded autism parent training program with Black parents. Autism, 26(3), 716–726. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211073373 

91 

 
 
Kane, G. A., Wood, V. A., & Barlow, J. (2007). Parenting programmes: A systematic review and 
synthesis of qualitative research. Child: Care, Health and Development, 33(6), 784–793. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2007.00750.x 

Kataoka, S. H., Zhang, L., & Wells, K. B. (2002). Unmet need for mental health care among 
U.S. children: Variation by ethnicity and insurance status. American Journal of 
Psychiatry, 159(9), 1548–1555. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.159.9.1548 

Katz, L. F., Maliken, A. C., & Stettler, N. M. (2012). Parental meta-emotion philosophy: A 

review of research and theoretical framework. Child Development Perspectives, 6(4), 
417–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00244.x 

Katz, R., & Hadani, H. S. (2022). The emotionally intelligent child: Effective strategies for 

parenting self-aware, cooperative, and well-balanced kids. New Harbinger Publications. 

Kazdin, A. E. (1980). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior. Journal 
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13(2), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1980.13-259 

Kazdin, A. E. (2021). Research design in clinical psychology (5th Revised). Cambridge 

University Press. 

Kelley, M. L., Heffer, R. W., Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1989). Development of a 

modified Treatment Evaluation Inventory. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral 
Assessment, 11(3), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00960495 

Kılıç, S. (2015). Emotional competence and emotion socialization in preschoolers: The 

viewpoint of preschool teachers. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(4), 1007–
1020. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.4.2529 

Kohl, P. L., & Seay, K. D. (2015). Engaging African American fathers in behavioral parent 

training: To adapt or not adapt. Best Practices in Mental Health, 11(1), 54–68. PubMed. 
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26190952 

Korest, R. (2021). A randomized pilot study of the Incredible Years self-administered teacher 
classroom management program during COVID-19. Michigan State University. 

Kratochwill, T. R., Elliott, S. N., Loitz, P. A., Sladeczek, I., & Carlson, J. S. (2003). Conjoint 

consultation using self-administered manual and videotape parent-teacher training: 
Effects on children’s behavioral difficulties. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(3), 269–
302. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.3.269.22574 

Labella, M. H. (2018). The sociocultural context of emotion socialization in African American 

families. Clinical Psychology Review, 59, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.10.006 

Lagacé-Séguin, D. G., & Coplan, R. J. (2005). Maternal emotional styles and child social 

adjustment: Assessment, correlates, outcomes and goodness of fit in early childhood. 
Social Development, 14(4), 613–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2005.00320.x 

92 

 
 
LeBuffe, P. A., & Naglieri, J. A. (2012). Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for 

Preschoolers, Second Edition (DECA-P2): User’s guide and technical manual. Kaplan 
Early Learning Company. 

Leerkes, E. M., & Bailes, L. G. (2019). Emotional development within the family context. In V. 
LoBue, K. Pérez-Edgar, & K. A. Buss (Eds.), Handbook of Emotional Development (pp. 
627–661). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17332-
6_24 

Leerkes, E. M., Supple, A. J., & Gudmunson, J. A. (2014). Ethnic differences in women’s 

emotional reactions to parental non-supportive emotion socialization. Marriage & Family 
Review, 50(5), 435–446. PubMed. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2014.897671 

Leerkes, E. M., Supple, A. J., Su, J., & Cavanaugh, A. M. (2015). Links between remembered 

childhood emotion socialization and adult adjustment: Similarities and differences 
between European American and African American women. Journal of Family Issues, 
36(13), 1854–1877. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X13505567 

Leijten, P., Raaijmakers, M. A. J., Orobio De Castro, B., Van Den Ban, E., & Matthys, W. 

(2017). Effectiveness of the Incredible Years parenting program for families with 
socioeconomically disadvantaged and ethnic minority backgrounds. Journal of Clinical 
Child & Adolescent Psychology, 46(1), 59–73. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.1038823 

Lugo-Candelas, C. I., Harvey, E. A., Breaux, R. P., & Herbert, S. D. (2016). Ethnic differences 

in the relation between parental emotion socialization and mental health in emerging 
adults. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(3), 922–938. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0266-8 

Lunkenheimer, E. S., Shields, A. M., & Cortina, K. S. (2007). Parental emotion coaching and 

dismissing in family interaction. Social Development, 16(2), 232–248. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00382.x 

McLoyd, V. C. (1990). Minority children: Introduction to the special issue. Child Development, 

61(2), 263–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02777.x 

McLoyd, V. C., Hardaway, C. R., & Jocson, R. M. (2019). African American parenting. In M. H. 
Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting (3rd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 57–107). Routledge. 

Mirabile, S. P. (2014). Parents’ inconsistent emotion socialization and children’s socioemotional 

adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(5), 392–400. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.06.003 

Morris, A. S., Criss, M. M., Silk, J. S., & Houltberg, B. J. (2017). The impact of parenting on 

emotion regulation during childhood and adolescence. Child Development Perspectives, 
11(4), 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12238 

93 

 
 
Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the 
family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development (Oxford, 
England), 16(2), 361–388. PubMed. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x 

Nelson, J. A., Leerkes, E. M., O’Brien, M., Calkins, S. D., & Marcovitch, S. (2012). African 

American and European American mothers’ beliefs about negative emotions and emotion 
socialization practices. Parenting, 12(1), 22–41. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2012.638871 

Nelson, J. A., Leerkes, E. M., Perry, N. B., O’Brien, M., Calkins, S. D., & Marcovitch, S. 
(2013). European-American and African-American mothers’ emotion socialization 
practices relate differently to their children’s academic and social-emotional competence. 
Social Development, 22(3), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00673.x 

Nelson, J. A., O’Brien, M., Calkins, S. D., Leerkes, E. M., Marcovitch, S., & Blankson, A. N. 

(2012). Maternal expressive style and children’s emotional development. Infant and 
Child Development, 21(3), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.748 

Newton, J. T., & Sturmey, P. (2004). Development of a short form of the Treatment Evaluation 
Inventory for acceptability of psychological interventions. Psychological Reports, 94(2), 
475–481. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.94.2.475-481 

Ogg, J. A., & Carlson, J. S. (2009). The self-administered Incredible Years Parent Training 

Program: Perceived effectiveness, acceptability, and integrity with children exhibiting 
symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Journal of Evidence-Based 
Practices for Schools, 10(2), 143–166. 

Planey, A. M., Smith, S. M., Moore, S., & Walker, T. D. (2019). Barriers and facilitators to 

mental health help-seeking among African American youth and their families: A 
systematic review study. Children and Youth Services Review, 101, 190–200. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.04.001 

Porzig-Drummond, R., Stevenson, R. J., & Stevenson, C. (2014). The 1-2-3 Magic parenting 

program and its effect on child problem behaviors and dysfunctional parenting: A 
randomized controlled trial. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 58, 52–64. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2014.05.004 

Posthumus, J. A., Raaijmakers, M. A. J., Maassen, G. H., van Engeland, H., & Matthys, W. 

(2012). Sustained effects of Incredible Years as a preventive intervention in preschool 
children with conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(4), 487–500. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-011-9580-9 

Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & 
Hensley, M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, 
measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental 
Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65–76. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 

94 

 
 
Qiu, C., & Shum, K. K. (2022). Emotion coaching intervention for Chinese mothers of 

preschoolers: A randomized controlled trial. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 
53(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-020-01101-6 

Ramsden, S. R., & Hubbard, J. A. (2002). Family expressiveness and parental emotion coaching: 

Their role in children’s emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child 
Psychology, 30(6), 657–667. https://doi.org/0091-0627/02/1200-0657/0 

Raval, V. V., & Walker, B. L. (2019). Unpacking ‘culture’: Caregiver socialization of emotion 
and child functioning in diverse families. Developmental Review, 51, 146–174. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.11.001 

Raver, C. C. (2002). Emotions matter: Making the case for the role of young children’s 

emotional development for early school readiness. Social Policy Report, 16(3), 1–20. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2379-3988.2002.tb00041.x 

Reid, M. J., Webster-Stratton, C., & Beauchaine, T. P. (2001). Parent training in Head Start: A 

comparison of program response among African American, Asian American, Caucasian, 
and Hispanic mothers. Prevention Science, 2(4), 209–227. 
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013618309070 

Ritschel, L. A., Tone, E. B., Schoemann, A. M., & Lim, N. E. (2015). Psychometric properties of 

the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale across demographic groups. Psychological 
Assessment, 27(3), 944–954. APA PsycArticles®. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000099 

Ross, S. J., & Masters, M. C. (2022). Approaches to Longitudinal Data Analyses. In 
Longitudinal Studies of Second Language Learning (pp. 26–46). Routledge. 

Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Swendeman, D., & Chorpita, B. F. (2012). Disruptive innovations for 

designing and diffusing evidence-based interventions. American Psychologist, 67(6), 
463–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028180 

Ruma, P. R., Burke, R. V., & Thompson, R. W. (1996). Group parent training: Is it effective for 

children of all ages? Behavior Therapy, 27(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-
7894(96)80012-8 

Ryan, R., O’Farrelly, C., & Ramchandani, P. (2017). Parenting and child mental health. London 
Journal of Primary Care, 9(6), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/17571472.2017.1361630 

Salmon, K., Dittman, C., Sanders, M., Burson, R., & Hammington, J. (2014). Does adding an 

emotion component enhance the Triple P−Positive Parenting Program? Journal of Family 
Psychology, 28(2), 244–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035997 

Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. P. (1995). Emotional 

attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood 
Scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, & health. (pp. 125–154). 
American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10182-006 

95 

 
 
Sanders, M. R., Bor, W., & Morawska, A. (2007). Maintenance of treatment gains: A 

comparison of enhanced, standard, and self-directed Triple P-Positive Parenting Program. 
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(6), 983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-
9148-x 

Sanders, M. R., Markie-Dadds, C., Tully, L. A., & Bor, W. (2000). The Triple P-Positive 

Parenting Program: A comparison of enhanced, standard, and self-directed behavioral 
family intervention for parents of children with early onset conduct problems. Journal of 
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(4), 624–640. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
006X.68.4.624 

Sanetti, L. H., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2005). Treatment integrity assessment within a problem-

solving model. In R. Brown-Chidsey & K. J. Andren (Eds.), Assessment for intervention: 
A problem-solving approach. (pp. 304–325). Guilford Press. 

Sanetti, L. H. M., Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2021). Treatment Fidelity: What It Is and Why It 

Matters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 36(1), 5–11. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12238 

Scott, S., & Gardner, F. (2015). Parenting programs (6th ed.). John Wiley & Sons Inc. 

Serdar, C. C., Cihan, M., Yücel, D., & Serdar, M. A. (2021). Sample size, power and effect size 

revisited: Simplified and practical approaches in pre-clinical, clinical and laboratory 
studies. Biochemia Medica, 31(1), 27–53. 

Sheridan, S. M. (2014). Single-case designs and large N studies: The best of both worlds. In T. 
R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case intervention research: Methodological 
and statistical advances. (pp. 299–308). American Psychological Association. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/14376-011 

Sheridan, S. M., Knoche, L. L., Boise, C. E., Moen, A. L., Lester, H., Edwards, C. P., 

Schumacher, R., & Cheng, K. (2019). Supporting preschool children with developmental 
concerns: Effects of the Getting Ready intervention on school-based social competencies 
and relationships. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 48, 303–316. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.03.008 

Silk, J. S., Shaw, D. S., Skuban, E. M., Oland, A. A., & Kovacs, M. (2006). Emotion regulation 
strategies in offspring of childhood-onset depressed mothers. Journal of Child 
Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(1), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
7610.2005.01440.x 

Singh, V., Rana, R. K., & Singhal, R. (2013). Analysis of repeated measurement data in the 
clinical trials. Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine, 4(2), 77–81. 
https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-9476.113872 

Steed, E. A., & Kranski, T. A. (2020). Participant characteristics in research on interventions for 
young children with challenging behavior: A systematic review. Topics in Early 

96 

 
 
Childhood Special Education, 40(2), 110–123. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121419832969 

Stewart, L. S., & Carlson, J. S. (2010). Investigating parental acceptability of the Incredible 
Years self-administered parent training program for children presenting externalizing 
behavior problems. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26(2), 162–175. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/15377901003709369 

Suchy, Y. (2011). Clinical neuropsychology of emotion. Guilford Press. 

Taylor, T. K., Webster‐Stratton, C., Feil, E. G., Broadbent, B., Widdop, C. S., & Severson, H. H. 

(2008). Computer‐based intervention with coaching: An example using the Incredible 
Years program. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 37(4), 233–246. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/16506070802364511 

Thomson, R. N., & Carlson, J. S. (2017). A pilot study of a self-administered parent training 

intervention for building preschoolers’ social–emotional competence. Early Childhood 
Education Journal, 45(3), 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0798-6 

Thornton, S., & Calam, R. (2011). Predicting intention to attend and actual attendance at a 

universal parent-training programme: A comparison of social cognition models. Clinical 
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 16(3), 365–383. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104510366278 

Webster-Stratton, C. (2006). The Incredible Years Preschool Basic Parenting Program. 

Incredible Years Press. 

Webster-Stratton, C., & Bywater, T. (2019). The Incredible Years® series: An internationally 

evidenced multimodal approach to enhancing child outcomes. In B. H. Fiese, M. Celano, 
K. Deater-Deckard, E. N. Jouriles, & M. A. Whisman (Eds.), APA handbook of 
contemporary family psychology: Family therapy and training, Vol. 3 (pp. 343–359). 
American Psychological Association. 

Webster-Stratton, C., & Hammond, M. (1998). Conduct problems and level of social competence 

in Head Start children: Prevalence, pervasiveness, and associated risk factors. Clinical 
Child and Family Psychology Review, 1(2), 101–124. 
https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021835728803 

Webster-Stratton, C., Hollinsworth, T., & Kolpacoff, M. (1989). The long-term effectiveness and 

clinical significance of three cost-effective training programs for families with conduct-
problem children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(4), 550–553. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.57.4.550 

Webster-Stratton, C., Kolpacoff, M., & Hollinsworth, T. (1988). Self-administered videotape 

therapy for families with conduct-problem children: Comparison with two cost-effective 
treatments and a control group. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(4), 
558–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.4.558 

97 

 
 
Williams, A. D., Banerjee, M., Lozada-Smith, F., Lambouths III, D., & Rowley, S. J. (2017). 

Black mothers’ perceptions of the role of race in children’s education. Journal of 
Marriage and Family, 79(4), 932–946. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12410 

Williams, B. J., & Carlson, J. S. (2023). Effects of an online emotion socialization intervention 
for parents of at-risk preschoolers enrolled in Head Start during a global pandemic. HS 
Dialog: The Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Childhood Field., 26(1), 5–34. 

Wilson, K. R., Havighurst, S. S., & Harley, A. E. (2012). Tuning in to Kids: An effectiveness 
trial of a parenting program targeting emotion socialization of preschoolers. Journal of 
Family Psychology, 26(1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026480 

Wilson, K. R., Havighurst, S. S., & Harley, A. E. (2014). Dads Tuning in to Kids: Piloting a new 

parenting program targeting fathers’ emotion coaching skills. Journal of Community 
Psychology, 42(2), 162–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21601 

Wilson, K. R., Havighurst, S. S., Kehoe, C., & Harley, A. E. (2016). Dads Tuning in to Kids: 
Preliminary evaluation of a fathers’ parenting program. Family Relations, 65(4), 535–
549. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12216 

Witt, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (1985). Acceptability of classroom intervention strategies. In T. R. 
Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology (1st ed., Vol. 4, pp. 251–288). 
Routledge. 

Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied 

behavior analysis is finding its heart1. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(2), 203–
214. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203 

Wright, L. G. (2015). The Mommy and Me Play Program: A pilot play intervention for low-
income, African American preschool families. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social 
Work, 12(4), 349–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/15433714.2013.849216 

Wu, Q., Feng, X., Hooper, E. G., Gerhardt, M., Ku, S., & Chan, M. H.-M. (2019). Mother’s 
emotion coaching and preschooler’s emotionality: Moderation by maternal parenting 
stress. Journal of Applied Development Psychology, 65, 101066. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2019.101066 

Wymbs, F. A., Cunningham, C. E., Chen, Y., Rimas, H. M., Deal, K., Waschbusch, D. A., & 
Pelham, W. E. (2016). Examining parents’ preferences for group and individual parent 
training for children with ADHD symptoms. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent 
Psychology, 45(5), 614–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.1004678 

Yap, M. B. H., Allen, N. B., Leve, C., & Katz, L. F. (2008). Maternal meta-emotion philosophy 

and socialization of adolescent affect: The moderating role of adolescent temperament. 
Journal of Family Psychology, 22(5), 688–700. https://doi-
org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/10.1037/a0013104 

98 

 
 
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Rudolph, J., Kerin, J., & Bohadana-Brown, G. (2022). Parent 

emotional regulation: A meta-analytic review of its association with parenting and child 
adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 46(1), 63–82. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254211051086 

Zinsser, K. M., Gordon, R. A., & Jiang, X. (2021). Parents’ socialization of preschool-aged 

children’s emotion skills: A meta-analysis using an emotion-focused parenting practices 
framework. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 55, 377–390. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.02.001 

99 

 
 
APPENDIX A 

TUNING IN TO KIDS PROGRAM FIDELITY CHECKLIST 

Tuning in to Kids  

Program Fidelity Checklist 

Session 1 

Date: _________________ 

Facilitators: __________________ 

Activity 

Covered 

(Y/N) 

Comments 

Introduction to the Program 

Warm-up exercise 

Guidelines/rules for the group 

Structure of the sessions 

Normalizing children’s behavior 

Emotional intelligence 

Emotion Coaching 

Resources 

Having family fun 

Friendship skills 

Role plays 

Home activities 

•  Emotion Talk Time 

•  Noticing emotions at a lower intensity 

•  Diaries 

Notes: 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX B 

DIFFICULTIES IN EMOTION REGULATION SCALE 

Instructions: Please select the response that is most true for you. 

Almost 

Never 

About 

Most of 

Sometimes 

half the 

the 

time 

time 

Almost 

always 

1.  I am clear about my feeling 

2.  I pay attention to how I feel 

3.  I experience my emotions as 

overwhelming and out of control 

4.  I have no idea how I am feeling 

5.  I have difficulty making sense out 

of my feelings 

6.  I am attentive to my feelings 

7.  I know exactly how I am feeling 

8.  I care about what I am feeling 

9.  I am confused about how I feel 

10. When I’m upset, I acknowledge my 

emotions 

11. When I’m upset, I become angry 

with myself for feeling that way 

12. When I’m upset, I become 

embarrassed for feeling that way 

13. When I’m upset, I have difficulty 

getting work done 

14. When I’m upset, I become out of 

control 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

101 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
 
15. When I’m upset, I believe that I 

will remain that way for a long 

time 

16. When I’m upset, I believe that I’ll 

end up feeling very depressed 

17. When I’m upset, I believe that my 

feelings are valid and important 

18. When I’m upset, I have difficulty 

focusing on other things 

19. When I’m upset, I feel out of 

control 

20. When I’m upset, I can still get 

things done 

21. When I’m upset, I feel ashamed of 

myself for feeling that way 

22. When I’m upset, I know that I can 

find a way to eventually feel better 

23. When I’m upset, I feel like I am 

weak 

24. When I’m upset, I feel like I can 

remain in control of my behaviors 

25. When I’m upset, I feel guilty for 

feeling that way 

26. When I’m upset, I have difficulty 

concentrating 

27. When I’m upset, I have difficulty 

controlling my behaviors 

28. When I’m upset, I believe there is 

nothing I can do to make myself 

feel better 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

102 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
29. When I’m upset, I become irritated 

with myself for feeling that way 

30. When I’m upset, I start to feel very 

bad about myself 

31. When I’m upset, I believe that 

walling in it is all I can do 

32. When I’m upset, I lose control over 

my behaviors 

33. When I’m upset, I have difficulty 

thinking about anything else 

34. When I’m upset, I take time to 

figure out what I’m really feeling 

35. When I’m upset, it takes me a long 

time to feel better 

36. When I’m upset, my emotions feel 

overwhelming 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

103 

 
 
 
APPENDIX C 

PARENTAL EMOTION STYLE QUESTIONNAIRE 

Below you will see statements that describe feelings in yourself and your child. For each 

statement, please decide how much you agree or disagree.  

Strongly 

Disagree 

Disagree  Neutral  Agree 

Strongly 

Agree 

1.  When my child is angry, I want to 

know what he/she is thinking. 

2.  When my child is scared, it’s an 

opportunity for getting close. 

3.  When my child is worried, it’s time to 

solve a problem 

4.  Anger is an emotion worth exploring. 

5.  I try to change my child’s worried 

moods into cheerful ones. 

6.  I prefer my child to be happy rather 

than overly emotional. 

7.  Sadness is something that one has to 

get over. 

8.  When my child gets angry, my goal is 

to get him/her to stop 

9.  I help my child get over sadness so 

he/she can move on to other things. 

10. When my child is angry, it’s an 

opportunity for getting close. 

11. When my child is scared, I take some 

time to try to experience this feeling 

with him/her. 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

104 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

 
 
 
2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

12. When my child is angry, it’s time to 

solve a problem. 

13. When my child is sad, I am expected 

to fix the world and make it perfect. 

14. Childhood is a happy-go-lucky time, 

not a time for feeling worried. 

15. When my child is sad, it’s time to 

problem solve. 

16. Childhood is a happy-go-lucky time, 

not a time for feeling sad or angry. 

17. When my child gets worried, my goal 

is to make him/her feel better. 

18. When my child is worried, I want to 

know what he/she is thinking. 

19. When my child is angry, I take some 

time to try to experience this feeling 

with him/her. 

20. When my child gets sad, it’s a time to 

get close. 

21. I try to change my child’s angry 

moods into cheerful ones. 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

105 

 
 
 
APPENDIX D 

COPING WITH CHILDREN’S NEGATIVE EMOTIONS SCALE 

In the following items, what is the likelihood that you would respond in the ways listed for each 

scenario? For each response, please choose a number from 1-7.  

1. If my child becomes angry because he/she is sick or hurt and can't go to his/her friend's 

birthday party, I would:  

Very 

Unlikely 

Unlikely 

Somewhat 

Likely 

Likely 

Very 

Likely 

Send my child to his/her room to 

cool off 

Get angry at my child 

Help my child think about ways 

that he/she can still be with friends 

(e.g., invite some friends over 

after the party) 

Tell my child not to make a big 

deal out of missing the party 

Encourage my child to express 

his/her feelings of anger and 

frustration 

Soothe my child and do something 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

3 

2 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

5 

6 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

fun with him/her to make him/her 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

feel better about missing the party 

2. If my child falls off his/her bike and breaks it, and then gets upset and cries, I would: 

Remain calm and not let myself 

get anxious 

Very 

Unlikely 

Unlikely 

Somewhat 

Likely 

Likely 

Very 

Likely 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Comfort my child and try to get 

him/her to forget about the 

accident 

Tell my child that he/she is over-

reacting 

Help my child figure out how to 

get the bike fixed 

Tell my child it's OK to cry 

Tell my child to stop crying or 

he/she won't be allowed to ride 

his/her bike anytime soon 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

5 

6 

6 

5 

6 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

3. If my child loses some prized possession and reacts with tears, I would: 

Very 

Unlikely 

Unlikely 

Somewhat 

Likely 

  Likely 

Very 

Likely 

Get upset with him/her for being so 

careless and then crying about it 

Tell my child that he/she is over-

reacting 

Help my child think of places he/she 

hasn't looked yet 

Distract my child by talking about 

happy things 

Tell him/her it's OK to cry when you 

feel unhappy 

Tell him/her that's what happens 

when you're not careful 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

4. If my child is afraid of injections and becomes quite shaky and teary while waiting for his/her 

turn to get a shot, I would: 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Very 

Unlikely 

Unlikely 

Somewhat 

Likely 

Likely 

Very 

Likely 

Tell him/her to shape up or he/she 

won't be allowed to do something 

he/she likes to do (e.g., watch TV) 

Encourage my child to talk about 

his/her fears 

Tell my child not to make a big 

deal of the shot 

Tell him/her not to embarrass us 

by crying 

Comfort him/her before and after 

the shot 

Talk to my child about ways to 

make it hurt less (such as relaxing 

so it won't hurt or taking deep 

breaths). 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

6 

5 

5 

5 

5 

6 

6 

6 

6 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

5. If my child is going over to spend the afternoon at a friend's house and becomes nervous and 

upset because I can't stay there with him/her, I would: 

Very 

Unlikely 

Unlikely 

Somewhat 

Likely 

Likely 

Very 

Likely 

Distract my child by talking about 

all the fun he/she will have with 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

his/her friend 

Help my child think of things that 

he/she could do so that being at 

the friend's house without me 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

wasn't scary (e.g., take a favorite 

book or toy with him/her) 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Tell my child to quit over-reacting 

and being a baby 

Tell the child that if he/she doesn't 

stop that he/she won't be allowed 

to go out anymore 

Feel upset and uncomfortable 

because of my child's reactions 

Encourage my child to talk about 

his/her nervous feelings 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

3 

2 

3 

2 

2 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

7 

7 

7 

7 

6. If my child is participating in some group activity with his/her friends and proceeds to make a 

mistake and then looks embarrassed and on the verge of tears, I would: 

Very 

Unlikely 

Unlikely 

Somewhat 

Likely 

Likely 

Very 

Likely 

Comfort my child and try to make 

him/her feel better 

Tell my child that he/she is over-

reacting 

Feel uncomfortable and 

embarrassed myself 

Tell my child to straighten up or 

we'll go home right away 

Encourage my child to talk about 

his/her feelings of embarrassment 

Tell my child that I'll help him/her 

practice so that he/she can do 

better next time 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7. If my child is about to appear in a recital or sports activity and becomes visibly nervous about 

people watching him/her, I would: 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Very 

Unlikely 

Unlikely 

Somewhat 

Likely 

Likely 

Very 

Likely 

Help my child think of things that 

he/she could do to get ready for 

his/her turn (e.g., to do some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

warm-ups and not to look at the 

audience) 

Suggest that my child think about 

something relaxing so that his/her 

nervousness will go away 

Remain calm and not get nervous 

myself 

Tell my child that he/she is being 

a baby about it 

Tell my child that if he/she doesn't 

calm down, we'll have to leave 

and go home right away 

Encourage my child to talk about 

his/her nervous feelings 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

3 

2 

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

6 

5 

5 

6 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

8. If my child receives an undesirable birthday gift from a friend and looks obviously 

disappointed, even annoyed, after opening it in the presence of the friend, I would: 

Very 

Unlikely 

Unlikely 

Somewhat 

Likely 

  Likely 

Very 

Likely 

1 

1 

2 

3 

2 

3 

4 

4 

5 

6 

5 

6 

7 

7 

Encourage my child to express 

his/her disappointed feelings 

Tell my child that the present can 

be exchanged for something the 

child wants 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOT be annoyed with my child for 

being rude 

Tell my child that he/she is over-

reacting 

Scold my child for being 

insensitive to the friend's feelings 

Try to get my child to feel better by 

doing something fun 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

7 

7 

7 

7 

9. If my child is panicky and can't go to sleep after watching a scary TV show, I would: 

Very 

Unlikely 

Unlikely 

Somewhat 

Likely 

  Likely 

Very 

Likely 

Encourage my child to talk about 

what scared him/her 

Get upset with him/her for being 

silly 

Tell my child that he/she is over-

reacting 

Help my child think of something 

to do so that he/she can get to sleep 

(e.g., take a toy to bed, leave the 

lights on) 

Tell him/her to go to bed or he/she 

won't be allowed to watch any 

more TV 

Do something fun with my child to 

help him/her forget about what 

scared him/her 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

7 

7 

7 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
10. If my child is at a park and appears on the verge of tears because the other children are mean 

to him/her and won't let him/her play with them, I would: 

Very 

Unlikely 

Unlikely 

Somewhat 

Likely 

NOT get upset myself 

Tell my child that if he/she starts 

crying then we'll have to go home 

right away 

Tell my child it's OK to cry when 

he/she feels bad 

Comfort my child and try to get 

him/her to think about something 

happy 

Help my child think of something 

else to do 

Tell my child that he/she will feel 

better soon 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

3 

2 

2 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

  Likely 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

Very 

Likely 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

11. If my child is playing with other children and one of them calls him/her names, and my child 

then begins to tremble and become tearful, I would: 

Very 

Unlikely 

Unlikely 

Somewhat 

Likely 

  Likely 

Very 

Likely 

Tell my child not to make a big 

deal out of it 

Feel upset myself 

Tell my child to behave or we'll 

have to go home right away 

Help my child think of constructive 

things to do when other children 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

5 

5 

6 

6 

6 

5 

6 

7 

7 

7 

7 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
tease him/her (e.g., find other 

things to do) 

Comfort him/her and play a game 

to take his/her mind off the 

upsetting event 

Encourage him/her to talk about 

how it hurts to be teased 

1 

1 

2 

3 

2 

3 

4 

4 

5 

6 

5 

6 

7 

7 

12. If my child is shy and scared around strangers and consistently becomes teary and wants to 

stay in his/her bedroom whenever family friends come to visit, I would: 

Very 

Unlikely 

Unlikely 

Somewhat 

Likely 

  Likely 

Very 

Likely 

Help my child think of things to do 

that would make meeting my 

friends less scary (e.g., to take a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

favorite toy with him/her when 

meeting my friends) 

Tell my child that it is OK to feel 

nervous 

Try to make my child happy by 

1 

2 

3 

talking about the fun things we can 

1 

2 

3 

do with our friends 

Feel upset and uncomfortable 

because of my child's reactions 

Tell my child that he/she must stay 

in the living room and visit with 

our friends 

Tell my child that he/she is being a 

baby 

1 

1 

1 

2 

3 

2 

3 

2 

3 

113 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX E 

TREATMENT EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE – PARENT FORM 

Please evaluate the intervention by circling the number which best describes your agreement or 

disagreement with each statement. Please answer each question. 

Strongly 

Disagree 

Disagree 

Slightly 

Slightly 

Disagree 

Agree 

Agree 

Strongly 

Agree 

1.  This was an acceptable 

intervention for my child’s 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

problem behavior.  

2.  Most parents would find 

this intervention 

appropriate for behavior 

problems.  

3.  The intervention was 

effective in changing my 

child’s problem behavior.  

4.  I would suggest the use of 

this intervention to other 

parents.  

5.  My child’s behavior 

problem was severe enough 

to warrant the use of this 

intervention.  

6.  Most parents would find 

this intervention suitable for 

the behavior problem 

described.  

7.  The intervention did not 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

1 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

4 

5 

6 

4 

5 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

result in negative side 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

effects for my child.  

114 

 
 
 
8.  The intervention would be 

appropriate for a variety of 

1 

children.  

9.  The intervention was a fair 

way to handle my child’s 

problem behavior.  

10. I liked the procedure used 

in the intervention.  

11. The intervention was a 

good way to handle my 

child’s behavior problem.  

12. Overall, the intervention 

was beneficial for my child.  

13. The intervention quickly 

improved my child’s 

behavior.  

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

14. The intervention produced a 

lasting improvement in my 

1 

child’s behavior.  

15. The intervention improved 

my child’s behavior to the 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

5 

6 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

4 

5 

6 

point that it would not 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

noticeably deviate from 

other children’s behavior.  

16. Soon after starting the 

intervention, I noticed a 

positive change in my 

child’s problem behavior.  

17. My child’s behavior 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

remained at an improved 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

level even after the 

115 

 
 
intervention was 

discontinued.  

18. Using the intervention not 

only improved my child’s 

behavior in the home but 

also in other settings.  

19. When comparing my child 

with a peer before and after 

the use of the intervention, 

my child’s and peer’s 

behavior was more alike 

after using the intervention.  

20. The intervention produced 

enough improvement in my 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

child’s behavior, so the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

behavior no longer was a 

problem.  

21. Other behaviors related to 

the problem behavior also 

were improved by the 

intervention. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

116 

 
 
 
APPENDIX F 

POST-INTERVENTION PARENT INTERVIEW 

Barriers and Engagement 

1.  What challenges or barriers did you face in completing this intervention? 

2.  Did you find this intervention to be engaging? 

Acceptability 

3.  What were your overall impressions of this intervention? 

4.  Did the strategies discussed in the program make sense to you? 

5.  How did the concepts in this program align with your parenting philosophy or style? 

6.  What were the best parts of this intervention? 

7.  What parts did you not like or not find helpful? 

8.  How could this intervention be improved to help you more? 

9.  Would you refer this program to a friend or family member who needed support with 

their child? 

Efficacy 

10. How do you think this intervention changed how you think about parenting your child’s 

emotions? 

11. Do you think the intervention increased your skills in helping your child with their 

emotions?  

12. Did you feel that you saw a change in your child’s behavior due to your participation in 

this program? 

Alignment with Parenting Values/Philosophy 

13. How do you feel TIK aligned with your parenting values before doing the intervention? 

14. Do you feel that this intervention aligns with your cultural values and beliefs around 

parenting? 

15. This program emphasizes how dismissive parenting can lead to unintended effects on 

children later. What did you think about how emotion dismissing was presented? 

16. How could this program have better integrated your beliefs and values about parenting? 

117 

 
 
APPENDIX G 

RESEARCH PARTICIPANT INFORMATION AND CONSENT FORM 

Study Title: Investigating the Efficacy of Tuning in to Kids to Explore Emotion Socialization in 
Black Parents of Preschoolers 
Researcher and Title: Briana Williams, MA, Doctoral Candidate 
Department and Institution: Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special 
Education 
Contact Information: will3460@msu.edu, (517) 618-1798 

BRIEF SUMMARY 
You are being asked to participate in a research study for a dissertation study that will investigate 
a parenting program. Researchers must provide a consent form to inform you about the research 
study,  convey  that  participation  is  voluntary,  explain  the  risks  and  benefits  of  participation, 
including why you might or might not want to participate, and empower you to make an informed 
decision. You should feel free to discuss and ask the researchers any questions you may have.  

You are being asked to participate in a research study for an emotion-focused parenting program 
to  improve  children’s  social-emotional  development.  Your  participation  in  this  study  will  take 
about four months. You will be asked to complete various measures before the intervention begins, 
during, immediately after, and one month after the intervention is complete.  

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH 
This research study will examine the impact of the Tuning in to Kids parenting program for 
Black parents. You have been selected as a possible participant because of your interest. From 
this research, the research team hopes to learn how effective the intervention is in benefiting the 
parent and child’s emotional knowledge and understanding and whether the program is 
acceptable and feasible for parents. Your participation in the study will take approximately ten 
weeks if assigned to the first group and 20 weeks if assigned to the second group. 

WHAT YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DO 
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a variation of the 
Tuning in to Kids program. You will be randomly assigned to one of two randomized groups. 
The first group will receive the parenting program for six weeks via Zoom. The second group 
will receive a book on raising emotionally intelligent children immediately and the 6-week 
intervention after six weeks. Once eligibility has been determined, participating parents will be 
assigned a random subject number so that information collected throughout the study will not be 
connected to your personal information and survey responses. Some participants may be asked to 
participate in a 30-minute interview with a research assistant over Zoom. The table below 
describes the measures you will be asked to complete and the timeline to complete the 
intervention. 

Data Collection Timeline 

Phase 

Measures 

Tuning in to Kids 

Waitlist Control 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pre-Intervention (2 
weeks) 

Implementation 
Phase  

Post-Intervention (1 
week) 

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) 
Parental Emotional Style Questionnaire (PESQ)  
Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scales (CCNES) 
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Preschoolers, Second 
Edition (DECA-P2) 

Treatment Fidelity Checklist – 
completed weekly after each in-
person session 
Participant Attendance 

No data collected 

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) 
Parental Emotional Style Questionnaire (PESQ)  
Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scales (CCNES) 
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Preschoolers, Second 
Edition (DECA-P2) 
Treatment Evaluation Questionnaire-Parent (TEQ-P) – TIK parents 
only 

Post-Intervention 
Interviews 

Phone/video interviews with a 
select number of participants 

No interviews conducted 

Follow Up (1-month 
post-intervention) 

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) 
Parental Emotional Style Questionnaire (PESQ) Coping with 
Children’s Negative Emotions Scales (CCNES) 
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Preschoolers, Second 
Edition (DECA-P2) 

Implementation of 
TIK (6 weeks) 

No data collected 

Participant Attendance 
Treatment Evaluation 
Questionnaire-Parent (TEQ-P) 
– following the end of the 
program 

POTENTIAL BENEFITS  
The study participants will be provided with an evidence-based parenting program to improve 
their and their child’s emotional regulation and development. Participation in the parenting 
program may improve your relationship with your child and increase your knowledge of 
children’s social-emotional development. 

POTENTIAL RISKS   
There are no foreseeable risks associated with this study. The potential risks of participating in 
this study may include discomfort in completing the intervention and answering sensitive 
questions about your parenting style and your child. 

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The data for this project will be kept confidential. Each participant will be assigned a random ID 
number that will be used in place of names to maintain confidentiality. The names collected 
during the screening process will not be used for data collection purposes outside of determining 
eligibility during the screening process and maintaining necessary communication throughout 
the study. All rating forms will be kept in a password-encrypted file on a computer only 
accessible by the research team. 

The results of this study may be published or presented at professional meetings, but the 
identities of all research participants will remain anonymous. Data will be collected via the 
internet with identifiers, and no IP addresses will be collected. 

YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW  
You have the right to say no to participating in the research. You can stop at any time after it has 
already started. There will be no consequences if you stop, and you will not be criticized. You 
will not lose any benefits that you usually receive. 

COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY 
There are no costs for the participants of this study. All materials will be provided free of charge. 
Participants can receive up to $75 in gift cards, which be provided for completing various 
components of the research study. Participants will receive compensation for the following tasks: 

•  $20 for completing the initial surveys 
•  $20 for completing all forms after the intervention 
•  $15 for completing forms after the one-month follow-up 
•  $20 for post-intervention interview 

CONTACT INFORMATION  
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part 
of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher Briana Williams through email 
(will3460@msu.edu) or phone (517-618-1798). You may also contact Dr. John Carlson through 
email (carlsoj@msu.edu) or by phone (517-432-4856).  

If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like 
to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you 
may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research 
Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or email irb@msu.edu or regular mail 
at 4000 Collins Rd, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. 

DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT. 
Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study.  

___________________________________   
Signature 

_____________________________ 
Date 

You will be sent a copy of this form to keep 

120