Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 4 (2015) 103–106

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcbs

Connect and shape: A parenting meta-strategy

Koa Whittingham a,b,n
a
Queensland Cerebral Palsy and Rehabilitation Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Level 7, Block 6, RBWH, Herston, Brisbane, 4029, Australia
b
School of Medicine and the School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The existing parenting literature is dominated by two worldviews: the behavioral worldview and the
Received 11 April 2014 relational/emotional worldview. Points of tension between these worldviews are apparent within the
Received in revised form scientific literature; however, both approaches can be fully incorporated into an evolutionary science
9 February 2015
paradigm including contextual behavioral science. Connect and shape is a parenting meta-strategy that
Accepted 17 March 2015
combines behavioral and the relational/emotional strategies into a single parent–child interaction. The
elements of connect and shape are not new. What is new is the combination of parental responsiveness/
Keywords: emotion coaching and behavioral parenting strategies into a single, clearly elucidated meta-strategy that
Parenting can be easily incorporated into parenting intervention.
Attachment
& 2015 Association for Contextual Behavioral Science. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Responsiveness
Meta-emotion
Contextual behavioral science

1. Connect and shape
The scientific literature on parenting is dominated by two
worldviews: the behavioral worldview and the relational/emotional
worldview (including attachment theory, meta-emotion theory and
emotional responsiveness). There are evidence-based parenting
interventions grounded in the behavioral worldview (Patterson,
1982, 2005; Sanders, 1999, 2008; Sanders, Kirby, Tellegen, & Day,
2014) and evidence-based parenting interventions grounded in the
relational/emotional worldview (Cohen et al., 1999; Havighurst,
Harleym, & Prior, 2004; Havighurst, Wilson, Harley, & Prior, 2009;
Hawes & Dadds, 2004), as well as parenting interventions that draw
from both frameworks (Allen, Timmer, & Urquiza, 2014; Eisenstadt,
Eyberg, McNeil, &, Newcomb and Funderburk, 1993; Salmon,
Dittman, Sanders, Burson, & Hammington, 2014).
There are points of tension between these two dominant world-
views (Coyne, 2013; Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003; Suchman, Pajulo,
DeCoste, & Mayes, 2006) and this tension is apparent in many current
controversies within the literature, for example, the debate on parent–
infant sleep practices (Douglas & Hill, 2013; Whittingham & Douglas,
2014). The tension between these two frameworks may even be seen
in interventions that attempt to combine them, in the sense that the
two basic worldviews are usually understood as applicable to different
situations, rather than applicable simultaneously in a single parent–
child interaction. For example, in a randomized controlled trial of
emotion-enhanced Triple P (Positive Parenting Program), Triple P
n
Correspondence address: Queensland Cerebral Palsy and Rehabilitation
Research Centre, Level 7, Block 6, RBWH, Herston, Brisbane 4029, Australia.
Tel.: þ 61 7 3646 5539; fax: þ 61 7 3636 5538.
E-mail address: koawhittingham@uq.edu.au
combined with parental emotion coaching strategies, the tension
between the two worldviews was managed by arguing that parental
responsiveness and emotion coaching are applicable when children
are distressed and engaging in attachment behaviors, whereas parent-
ing strategies based in operant theory, including planned ignoring,
logical consequences and time out, are applicable when the child is
engaging in misbehavior such as non-compliance (Salmon et al., 2014)
The obvious question, of course, is: what if my child is both distressed
and non-compliant? What if my child's attachment behavior, which
includes any behavior aimed at gaining proximity to and nurturance
from caregivers (Bowlby, 1988), is also, in a particular interaction,
coercive or dysfunctional? Parents too, detect the tension between
these two dominant worldviews. Parents have put variations of the
above questions to me repeatedly, often with considerable anxiety
about their ability to recognize the difference between misbehavior
and attachment behavior, and understandably so. In fact, misbehavior
co-occurring with significant child distress and/or anger is common,
particularly in preschool age children (i.e. temper tantrums)
(Giesbrecht, Miller, & Muller, 2010; Wakschlag et al. 2012).
The points of tension between the behavioral and the relational/
emotional worldviews can be fully resolved, to be point where both
understandings may be drawn upon simultaneously within a single
parent–child interaction. Philosophically, tensions may be fully resolved
by grounding both within the larger worldview of evolutionary science,
incorporating a contextual behavioral perspective (Coyne, McHugh,
& Martinez, 2011; Coyne & Murrell, 2009; Coyne & Wilson, 2004;
Murrell, Wilson, Drake, & Rogers, 2009; Shea & Coyne, 2011;
Whittingham, 2013; Whittingham, Sanders, McKinlay, & Boyd, 2014).
Within this larger paradigm, attachment behavior can be under-
stood as a behavioral class shaped by the operant function of
obtaining proximity to and nurturance from caregivers (Mansfield

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2015.03.002
2212-1447/& 2015 Association for Contextual Behavioral Science. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
104 K. Whittingham / Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 4 (2015) 103–106
& Cordova, 2007), and parental responsiveness can be understood
as parental caregiving behaviour under the appropriate and appe-
titive contextual control of the child's signals (Whittingham, 2014).
Further, the ongoing dance between child attachment and parental
caregiving behavioral systems can be understood as a crucial
evolutionary solution (Bowlby, 1988); enabling our species to reach
adulthood as self-aware and verbal humans after a lengthy and
vulnerable childhood with extensive neurodevelopment occurring
after birth (Ball, 2009).
Within this larger worldview, focus is brought to the cognitive
processes that may interfere with parental flexibility and respon-
siveness, including cognitive fusion and experiential avoidance.
Parents may attempt to control their child's behavior, thoughts or
feelings, in order to control their own experiences, at the expense of
responsive parenting (Coyne et al., 2011; Coyne & Murrell, 2009;
Shea & Coyne, 2011; Tiwari et al., 2008). Parents may also become
fused with verbal rules, particularly rules functioning as pliance or
incorrect, unworkable or untestable tracks, undermining the con-
textual control of parental caregiving behavior (Whittingham, 2014).
Practically, parents do not need to choose, in a particular parent–
child interaction, between parental responsiveness/emotion coaching
and behavioral parenting strategies. The two can be implemented
simultaneously in a single interaction, a flexible parenting meta-
strategy I am calling connect and shape. The components of connect
and shape are not new, what is new is the combining of parental
responsiveness/emotion coaching and behavioral parenting strate-
gies into a single, clearly elucidated meta-strategy that can be easily
incorporated into parenting intervention.
2. Key features of connect and shape
Connect and shape includes emotion coaching (Gottman, Katz,
& Hoover, 1996, 1997). It involves an empathetic and accepting
response to child emotions, in which emotions are understood as
opportunities for the child to learn and for the parent and child to
achieve greater connection within their relationship. It has been
argued that empathetic acceptance on behalf of a therapist
indirectly increases naturally reinforcing contingencies within
the therapeutic relationship (Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991) and it is
likely that this also occurs within parent–child relationships. In
fact, parent acceptance of their child's negative emotions predicts
better child emotional regulation (Ramsden & Hubbard, 2002). In
addition, the verbal labelling of child emotions by the parent
increases the child's emotional language skills (Gottman et al.,
1996, 1997;).
Connect and shape is consistent with responsive parenting and
emotional availability (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978;
Biringen, Derscheid, Vliegen, Closson, & Easterbrooks, 2014; Eshel,
Daelmans, Cabral de Mello, & Martines, 2006). The parent remains
within sensory distance and clearly communicates his or her
emotional availability in response to their child's cues. Parental
empathic understanding is crucial to parental responsiveness and
a necessary component of connect and shape (Coyne, Low, Miller,
Seifer, & Dickstein, 2007). Through connect and shape the parent
aims to meet their child's emotional needs.
Connect and shape includes parental scaffolding, that is, the
parent provides guidance, support and encouragement in order to
enable their child to perform behaviors that their child is currently
incapable of performing alone, in a manner that is sensitive to the
ongoing development of their child (Biringen et al., 2014; Clark,
Menna, & Mansel, 2012). Scaffolding may involve simplifying the task
so that the child is capable of performing it, or it may serve as a
discriminative stimulus indicating the availability of reinforcement
for specific behaviors. Parental scaffolding predicts social skills in
preschool children (Clark et al., 2012) as well as emotional regulation
and mutual enjoyment in preschool children born preterm (Erickson
et al., 2013). Cognitive, emotional and autonomy support are
embedded throughout connect and shape. The specific scaffolding
step of connect and shape may include: prompting specific alter-
native behaviors, reminding the child about opportunities for rein-
forcement within alternative activities, modelling an alternative
behavior, placing alternative activities within sensory distance or
reminding the child of parental availability. Within connect and
shape the child's emotional capabilities are understood as developing
through interaction with the parent.
Connect and shape is grounded within operant models of parent–
child interaction. In common with planned ignoring, logical conse-
quences or timeout parental reinforcement of the child's misbehavior
is avoided and alternative behaviors are reinforced (Patterson, 1982).
Connect and shape avoids the escalation trap, a pattern of coercive
interaction in which the behavior of parent or child, or both, becomes
increasingly coercive, with reinforcement for escalation (Kazdin, 1997;
Patterson, 1982). Parental focus on responsive, empathetic, and
accepting parenting increases naturally reinforcing contingencies for
adaptive child behaviors. For example, a child who reaches for a hug is
immediately hugged, a child who expresses their feelings verbally is
understood with compassion, and a child who moves on to the next
activity receives parental attention and joint play.
Connect and shape is focused on the development of a broad and
flexible behavioral repertoire in the child. The therapist should work
with the parent to identify developmentally relevant behaviors (DRB)
in a similar manner to a therapist identifying clinically relevant
behaviors in a functional analytic psychotherapy (FAP) framework
(Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991). Parents should be encouraged to identify,
not just the problematic behaviors (DRB1), but also a variety of
behaviors which may represent improvements for their particular
child (DRB2). Using an acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT)
framework (Hayes, Strosal, & Wilson, 2003) parents can consider the
kinds of child behaviors that may represent committed action: “will
this behavior, performed flexibly in different situations and relation-
ships, help my child to live a rich, meaningful life?” If a child's
behavior is particularly rigid and inflexible, the parent may choose to
reinforce all novel behaviors (Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003). Hence
the behaviors that a parent may choose to reinforce are dependent
upon the parental functional understanding of their particular child's
behavior. Common specific examples include: expressing emotions
verbally, asking for help and problem solving.
Connect and shape requires parental psychological flexibility,
empathic understanding of their child (Coyne et al., 2007),
acceptance of their child's emotions (Ramsden & Hubbard, 2002)
and defusion from verbal parenting rules (Whittingham, 2014).
ACT should be drawn upon as needed to promote flexible parent-
ing in conjunction with connect and shape.
3. Using connect and shape
The process of connect and shape is illustrated in Fig. 1. Parents
can be taught the process of connect and shape step by step, with
the flowchart as an aid if desired. The components of connect and
shape are not new, hence, the existing intervention literature
should be drawn upon as relevant to teach each of the individual
skills used as well as to support the cultivation of parental
psychological flexibility and empathic understanding.
4. Example of connect and shape in action
For illustrative purposes, this is an example of a parent–child
interaction using connect and shape. This example is not based on
specific real people; it is a realistic amalgamation. Connect and
 K. Whittingham / Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 4 (2015) 103–106 105

Reflect
Reflect your child’s emotion and/or wish with
acceptance (hint: “You are feeling…” “You
wish…” “You want…”)
Examples: “You wish you could go to the park
right now. That is disappointing.”
“I can see that you are feeling angry”

Scaffold
Make it as easy as possible for your child to do
something adaptive (hint: remind your child of
your availability or of alternative activities or
behaviors, or place alternative activities within
sensory distance or model alternative behaviors)
Examples: “If you’d like a hug, I’m right here.”
“If you’d like help, just ask.” If child performs an
adaptive behavior
Parent may recognise additional (any behaviour that is
opportunities to scaffold an improvement for
your child)
Watch and Wait
Remain within sensory distance without
responding to misbehavior. Show acceptance and
empathy nonverbally. Wait for an adaptive
behaviour.

Reinforce
Ensure any adaptive behaviors receive
immediate reinforcement.
Example: Child reaches for a hug,
parent hugs her
Child communicates verbally, parent
listens with compassion

Fig. 1. Process of connect and shape.

shape is a flexible and may appear very different in form within
different parent–child interactions.
Rebecca is the mother of a two-year-old daughter, Charlotte.
Rebecca reports that Charlotte can be well behaved, but is also “a
sensitive soul” who has “temper tantrums” and “emotional melt-
downs” several times a week. Rebecca is confused about how she
should respond to Charlotte's “meltdowns”. On one hand, she
believes that Charlotte is genuinely experiencing significant dis-
tress at these times and wants to respond to her distress with
compassion. On the other hand, she wants to encourage Charlotte
to develop more effective and appropriate ways to behave when
distressed. Rebecca is worried that if she responds to Charlotte's
“tantrums” by comforting her, she will accidentally reinforce the
behavior. Yet, she does not feel comfortable using time out or
planned ignoring because she is convinced that Charlotte is highly
distressed during “temper tantrums”, explaining her reluctance
with “I know she needs me”. Rebecca is taught the meta-strategy
connect and shape and puts it into action:
While setting the table for dinner, Rebecca notices that Char-
lotte suddenly stops playing with her blocks, throws several blocks
across the room, runs from the dining room into the lounge room
while screaming loudly, and throws herself on the couch. She
continues screaming. Charlotte is clearly highly distressed.
Rebecca walks into the lounge room.
Rebecca: “Are you okay? Are you hurt?”
Charlotte: “No!”
Charlotte continues screaming and begins to cry as well.
Rebecca: “You're feeling sad?” Reflect
Charlotte nods, still screaming and crying and buries her head
into the couch.
Rebecca: “Did you want to build a bigger tower? Wasn't it
working?” Reflect
Charlotte: “Yes!”
Charlotte continues screaming and crying. Rebecca sits on the
couch next to Charlotte.
Rebecca: “I'm here for you. Just let me know if there's anything
I can do to help, like give you a hug.” Scaffolding
Charlotte continues to scream and to cry with her head buried
in the couch. Rebecca continues to sit next to Charlotte. Rebecca's
body language is open and accepting. She does not respond. This
continues for two minutes. Watch and wait
Charlotte: “Mommy, I wanna cuddle!” Adaptive behavior
Rebecca: “Of course.”
Rebecca throws her arms around Charlotte. Natural reinforce-
ment of adaptive behavior
Charlotte stops screaming but she continues to cry in Rebecca's
arms. Rebecca continues to hold her without speaking. Charlotte's
crying begins to settle and after one minute, she stops. After two
minutes, Charlotte lifts her head back up and smiles tentatively at
Rebecca. Rebecca smiles back.
Rebecca: “I'd be happy to help build the tower if you like. Just
let me know.” Scaffolding
106 K. Whittingham / Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 4 (2015) 103–106
Charlotte: “Yes, please! Help me, mommy.” Adaptive behavior
Rebecca: “Of course. And then you could help me to set the
table”. Does that sound good?
Charlotte nods and smiles. They walk to back into the dining
room together and spend the next five minutes building a tall
tower. Natural reinforcement of adaptive behavior
5. Conclusion
The existing parenting literature is dominated by two world-
views: the behavioral and the relational/emotional worldviews
and there are points of tension between these two approaches.
However, both approaches can be fully incorporated into a wider
evolutionary science paradigm that incorporates contextual beha-
vioral science. Connect and shape is a parenting meta-strategy that
combines the behavioral and the relational/emotional worldviews
into a single parent–child interaction. The elements of connect and
shape are not new. What is new is the combining of parental
responsiveness/emotion coaching and behavioral parenting stra-
tegies into a single, clearly elucidated meta-strategy that can be
easily incorporated into parenting intervention.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Allen, B., Timmer, S. G., & Urquiza, A. J. (2014). Parent–child interaction therapy as
an attachment-based intervention: Threoretical rationale and pilot data with
adopted children. Children and Youth Services Review, 47, 334–341.
Ball, H. (2009). Bed-sharing and co-sleeping: Research overview. NCT New Digest,
48, 22–27.
Biringen, Z., Derscheid, D., Vliegen, N., Closson, L., & Easterbrooks, M. A. (2014).
Emotional availability (EA): Theoretical background, empirical research using
the EA Scales and clinical applications. Developmental Review, 34(2), 114–167.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent–child attachment and healthy human
development. New York: Basic Books.
Clark, R., Menna, R., & Mansel, W. S. (2012). Maternal scaffolding and children's
social skills: A comparison between agressive preschoolers and non-aggressive
preschoolers. Early Child Development and Care, 183(5), 707–725.
Cohen, N. J., Muir, E., Lojkasek, M., Muir, R., Parker, C. J., Barwick, M., et al. (1999).
Watch, wait and wonder: Testing the effectiveness of a new approach to
mother-infant psychotherapy. Infant Mental Health Journal, 20(4), 429–451.
Coyne, J. (2013). Parenting from the outside-in: Reflections on parent training
during a potential paradigm shift. Australian Psychologist, 48(5), 379–387.
Coyne, L. W., Low, C. M., Miller, A. L., Seifer, R., & Dickstein, S. (2007). Mothers'
empathic understanding of their toddlers: Assocaitions with maternal depres-
sion and sensitivity. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 483–497.
Coyne, L. W., McHugh, L., & Martinez, E. R. (2011). Acceptance and Commitment
Therapy (ACT): Advances and applications with children, adolescents and
families. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 20(2),
379–399.
Coyne, L. W., & Murrell, A. R. (2009). The joy of parenting an acceptance and
commitment therapy guide to effective parenting in the early years. Oakland: New
Harbinger Publications, Inc.
Coyne, L. W., & Wilson, K. G. (2004). The role of cognitive fusion in impaired
parenting: An RFT analysis. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological
Therapy, 4(3), 469–486.
Douglas, P. S., & Hill, P. S. (2013). Behavioral sleep interventions in the first six
months of life do not improve outcomes for mothers or infants: A systematic
review. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 34(7), 497–507.
Eisenberger, R., & Shanock, L. (2003). Rewards, intrinsic motivation, and creativity:
A case study of conceptual and methodoglocal isolation. Creativity Research
Journal, 15, 121–130.
Eisenstadt, T. H., Eyberg, S., McNeil, C. B., Newcomb, K., & Funderburk, B. (1993).
Parent–child interaction therapy with behavior problem children: Relative
effectiveness of two stages and overall treatment outcome. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 22(1), 42–51.
Erickson, S. J., Duvall, S. W., Fuller, J., Schrader, R., MacLean, P., & Lowe, J. R. (2013).
Differential associations between maternal scaffolding and toddler emotion
regulation in toddlers born preterm and full term. Early Human Development,
89, 699–704.
Eshel, N., Daelmans, B., Cabral de Mello, M., & Martines, J. (2006). Responsive
parenting: Interventions and outcomes. Bulletin of the World Health Organisa-
tion, 84(12), 991–998.
Giesbrecht, G. F., Miller, M. R., & Muller, U. (2010). The anger-distress model of
temper tantrums: Associations with emotional reactivity and emotional com-
petence. Infant and Child Development, 19, 478–497.
Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hoover, C. (1996). Parental meta-emotion philosophy
and the emotional life of families: Theoretical models and preliminary data.
Journal of Family Psychology, 16(3), 243–268.
Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hoover, C. (1997). Meta-emotion: How families
communicate emotionally Mahwah. N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Havighurst, S. S., Harleym, A., & Prior, M. (2004). Building preschool children's
emotional competence: A parenting program. Early Education and Development,
15(4), 423–448.
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.
Hawes, D. J., & Dadds, M. R. (2004). Australian data and psychometric properties of
the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Australian and New Zealand Journal
of Psychiatry, 38(8), 644–651. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/j.1440-1614.2004.01427.x.
Hayes, S. C., Strosal, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2003). Acceptance and Commitment
Therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford Press.
Kazdin, A. E. (1997). Parent management training: Evidence, outcomes, and issues.
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(10),
1349–1356.
Kohlenberg, R. J., & Tsai, M. (1991). Functional analytic psychotherapy creating intense
and curative therapeutic relationships. New York: Plenum Press.
Mansfield, A. K., & Cordova, J. V. (2007). A behavioral perspective on adult
attachment style, intimacy, and relationship health. In: D. W. Woods, &
J. W. Kanter (Eds.), Understanding behavior disorders: A contemporary behavioral
perspective. Reno: Context Press.
Murrell, A., Wilson, K. C. L., Drake, C. E., & Rogers, L. (2009). Relational responding in
parents. Behavior Analyst Today, 9, 196–214.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Vol. 3. Oregon: Castalia Publishing
Company.
Patterson, G. R. (2005). The next generation of PNTO models. Behavior Therapist, 28
(2), 27–33.
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.
Salmon, K., Dittman, C., Sanders, M. R., 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.
Sanders, M. R. (1999). Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: Towards an empirically
validated multilevel parenting and family support strategy for the prevention
of behavior and emotional problems in children. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review, 2(2), 71–90.
Sanders, M. R. (2008). Triple P-Positive Parenting Program as a public health
approach to strengthening parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(4),
506–517 Special Issue: Public health perspectives on family interventions.
Sanders, M. R., Kirby, J. N., Tellegen, C. L., & Day, J. J. (2014). The Triple P – Positive
Parenting Program: A systematic review and meta-analysis of a multi-level
system of parenting support. Clinical Psychology Review, 34, 334–357.
Shea, S. E., & Coyne, L. W. (2011). Maternal dysphoric mood, stress and parenting
practices in mothers of head start preschoolers: The role of experienital
avoidance. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 33, 231–247.
Suchman, N., Pajulo, M., DeCoste, C., & Mayes, L. (2006). Parenting interventions for
drug-dependent mothers and their young children: The case for an
attachment-based approach. Family Relations, 55(2), 211–226.
Tiwari, S., Podell, J. C., Martin, E. D., Mychailysezyn, M. P., Furr, J. M., & Kendall, P. C.
(2008). Experiential avoidance in the parenting of anxious youth: Theory,
research and future directions. Cognition and Emotion, 22(3), 480–496.
Wakschlag, L. S., Choi, S. W., Carter, A. S., Hullsiek, H., Burns, J., McCarthy, K., et al.
(2012). Defining the developmental parameters of temper loss in early child-
hood: Implications for developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psy-
chology and Psychiatry, 53(11), 1099–1108.
Whittingham, K. (2013). Becoming Mum. Brisbane: Pivotal Publishing.
Whittingham, K. (2014). Parenting in context. Journal of Contextual Behavioral
Science, 3, 212–215.
Whittingham, K., & Douglas, P. (2014). Optimising parent–infant sleep from birth to
six months: A new paradigm. Infant Mental Health JournalEpub ahead of print.
35(6), 614-623.
Whittingham, K., Sanders, M., McKinlay, L., & Boyd, R. N. (2014). Interventions to
reduce behavioral problems in children with cerebral palsy: An RCT. Pediatrics,
133, e1249–e1257.