Jenny Cross Educational Psychologist, Brighton and Hove and VIG trainer/supervisor Jenny Jarvis

1. Jenny Cross Educational Psychologist, Brighton and Hove and VIG trainer/supervisor Jenny Jarvis Counselling Psychologist, Lowestoft and VIG trainer/supervisor Do people trained in Video Interaction Guidance (VIG) perceive adult-child interaction differently from those who are not trained?

2. Overview Two pilot studies with small samples work in progress! Results potentially of interest but the methodology is also illustrative (i.e., - how should practitioners seek to measure training impact on participants’ cognitions?)

3. How should we Evaluate training? Typically training evaluations ask “How useful/ interesting was the training?” This is less important than assessment of whether participants’ thoughts, intentions and (ultimately) behaviours change/ improve following training.

4. Jarvis et al. (2004) Pilot Study: Three Groups • VIG Group N=3 • Control Clinicians N= 3 • (Multi-disciplinary clinicians in Child and Family service) • 3. Control Health Visitors N=3

5. Jarvis et al. (2004) Method • Participants watched a 4 min video extract showing a mother and her child. • Asked to comment on mother’s interaction style • Comments recorded and coded using Contact Principles • Comments also coded as positive or negative towards mother

6. Descriptions of Parent-Child Interactions

7. Positive and Negative Interactions

8. Jarvis et al. (2004) Tentative Conclusions • Professionals trained in VIG are more likely than either of other control groups to observe more examples of positive parental behaviours (“solution-focused “exceptions”) • Professionals trained in VIG describe interaction more specifically in terms of positive contact principles than other groups • Not just seeing parents “through rose tinted spectacles” – VIG trained professionals also see many more examples of negative parental behaviours.

9. Cross (2006) Pilot Study 2 Participants 14 Sure Start Children’s Centre professionals 7 family support workers 4 social workers or student social workers 1 Speech and Language Therapist 1 Health Visitor 1 Operational Manager (social work trained)

10. Cross 2006 Method I • Participants watched short video of parent and baby at meal time (feeding problems report) • Time 1 – before introductory training day VIG • Time 2 – end of training day • Asked to record on pro-forma “some short phrases which describe what you see happening between the parent and the child (behaviours) and ideas on the possible thoughts of those involved”

11. Cross 2006 Method II • Phrases were content analysed to look at number of positive parental behaviours perceived before and after training • Changes were noted in the quality of descriptions of what was “wrong” about the parents behaviour before and after training

12. Results I: Positive and Negative Interactions (N=14) Change in Positives t (paired, df=13) = 2.02, p<.07 marginal Change in Negatives t (paired, df=13) = 2.67, p<.02

13. Cross (2006) Results II • Although there is a trend indicating increases in both positives and in negatives - • The size of this change is fairly small with the increase in negatives being twice that of positives • Before After Increase (means) • Positives 0.36 1.07 0.71 • Negatives 3.36 4.86 1.50

14. Typical “negative” observations of parental behaviour - before and after the training BeforeAfter Mother not talking Not waiting/pausing/too quick Not making eye contact Not picking up baby’s signals/cues Not interacting Incorrect interpretation of baby Mum too persistent Non-synchronised communication No facial expression in mum Too many parent initiatives Task-orientated Mother unaware of baby’s view No affection etc. Not being attentive to baby What are the differences?

15. Cross (2004) Conclusions • One-day “distilled” VIG training, which offered participants micro-analysis practice to spot exceptions or residual strengths generated only a slight tendency to see more parental strengths in filmed interaction. • Individuals varied considerably in how well they were able to shift to identifying “positives” (6/14 saw no positives either before or after training)

16. What does this mean for VIG training for professionals working with parents and children?

17. Potential Implications • One day training can provide practice in micro-skills analysis and training in seeking positive exceptions can facilitate some professionals to begin to identify clients residual strengths in interventions. • Short training cannot substitute for the two current models of training; the 18 month accredited VIG guider route, or Veroc 4-session groupwork training. • Both current models involve practice over time, applying learning within one’s own work context, and self-modelling within a supportive supervision context which models the contact principles.

18. Finally… Further research with greater power (i.e., Ns) and longer follow up required – funding applications!