skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Parent Management Training—Oregon Model (treatment population)

Children's Mental Health: Disruptive Behavior
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2023.  Literature review updated March 2018.
Open PDF
Parent Management Training—Oregon Model (PMTO) is a behavioral parent training program for families of children with disruptive behavior problems. PMTO focuses on teaching parents to apply five parenting practices: skill encouragement, appropriate discipline, monitoring, problem solving, and positive involvement. This review includes evaluations of PMTO in both individual and group modalities for parents of children diagnosed with, or meeting a clinical threshold for, disruptive behavior disorder. Parents in these studies typically received an average of 27 therapy hours over three to six months; one study evaluated a brief primary care version of PMTO, with an average of 5.5 therapy hours over one month.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2022). The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $1,337 Benefits minus costs $1,400
Participants $733 Benefit to cost ratio $1.92
Others $1,062 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($219) benefits greater than the costs 72%
Total benefits $2,913
Net program cost ($1,513)
Benefits minus cost $1,400

^WSIPP’s benefit-cost model does not monetize this outcome.

^^WSIPP does not include this outcome when conducting benefit-cost analysis for this program.

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic in order to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the types of program impacts that were measured in the research literature (for example, crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information.

Adjusted effect sizes are used to calculate the benefits from our benefit cost model. WSIPP may adjust effect sizes based on methodological characteristics of the study. For example, we may adjust effect sizes when a study has a weak research design or when the program developer is involved in the research. The magnitude of these adjustments varies depending on the topic area.

WSIPP may also adjust the second ES measurement. Research shows the magnitude of some effect sizes decrease over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. We also report the unadjusted effect size to show the effect sizes before any adjustments have been made. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age Primary or secondary participant No. of effect sizes Treatment N Adjusted effect sizes(ES) and standard errors(SE) used in the benefit - cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Major depressive disorder^^
Clinical diagnosis of major depression or symptoms measured on a validated scale.
 8 Primary 1 37 -0.030 0.236 8 n/a n/a n/a -0.057 0.808
Disruptive behavior disorder symptoms
Clinical diagnosis of a disruptive behavior disorder (e.g., conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder) or symptoms measured on a validated scale.
 8 Primary 6 417 -0.183 0.075 8 -0.101 0.063 11 -0.199 0.007
Internalizing symptoms
Symptoms of internalizing behavior (e.g., sadness, anxiety, or withdrawal) measured on a validated scale.
 8 Primary 5 374 -0.059 0.077 8 -0.059 0.077 10 -0.062 0.424
Parental stress^
Stress reported by a parent, typically measured on a validated scale such as the Parental Stress Index. 
 37 Secondary 1 91 -0.147 0.173 37 n/a n/a n/a -0.147 0.393
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Disruptive behavior disorder symptoms Criminal justice system $39 $0 $93 $19 $151
Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation $261 $615 $334 $0 $1,209
K-12 grade repetition $8 $0 $0 $4 $12
K-12 special education $436 $0 $0 $218 $654
Health care associated with disruptive behavior disorder $633 $179 $653 $316 $1,782
Costs of higher education ($40) ($61) ($18) ($20) ($139)
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($757) ($757)
Totals $1,337 $733 $1,062 ($219) $2,913
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $2,205 2015 Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) ($1,513)
Comparison costs $868 2010 Cost range (+ or -) 30%
On average, participants received 22 therapist contact hours over one to six months, in either a group format or individual family therapy format. Per-participant costs are based on weighted average therapist time, as reported in the included studies. Hourly therapist cost is based on the actuarial estimates of reimbursement for treatment by modality (Mercer. (2016). Mental health and substance use disorder services data book for the state of Washington). For comparison group costs we use 2010 Washington State DSHS data to estimate the average reimbursement rate for treatment of child/adolescent disruptive behavior disorders.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Bank, L., Marlowe, J.H., Reid, J.B., Patterson, G.R., & Weinrott, M.R. (1991). A comparative evaluation of parent-training interventions for families of chronic delinquents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19(1), 15-33.

Bjørknes, R., & Manger, T. (2013). Can parent training alter parent practice and reduce conduct problems in ethnic minority children? A randomized controlled trial. Prevention, 14(1), 52-63.

Kjøbli, J., & Ogden, T. (2012). A randomized effectiveness trial of brief parent training in primary care settings. Prevention Science, 13(6), 616-26.

Kjøbli, J., Hukkelberg, S., & Ogden, T. (2013). A randomized trial of group parent training: reducing child conduct problems in real-world settings. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 51(3), 113-21.

Ogden, T. & Hagen, K.A. (2008). Treatment effectiveness of Parent Management Training in Norway: a randomized controlled trial of children with conduct problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(4), 607-21.