top of page
Search

The Role of Caregiver Training in Conduct Disorder Interventions

  • 4 hours ago
  • 4 min read

Written by: Alondra Alamillo


It’s David’s third time breaking curfew, and his parents are unsure what to do next. Lately, he has been arguing, disregarding house rules, and even destroying school property, resulting in repeated disciplinary actions. Although David’s parents had been notified of instances of bullying and stealing in elementary school, they did not think his behavior would escalate throughout middle school. After an assessment of David’s behavior, conduct disorder (CD) interventions were recommended to help prevent the development of additional behavior disorders or possible criminality. While the focus of these interventions is usually the child, caregiver training programs were also recommended as a good fit for improving the overall family dynamic and effectively supporting long-term change.

What is Conduct Disorder?

The time for onset of conduct disorder (CD) is broken down into three distinct categories: 1) Childhood-onset type, 2) Adolescent-onset type, or 3) Unspecified onset due to a lack of information needed to categorize the onset. These distinctions are helpful in deciding at what point in the child’s development symptoms occurred. There are 15 diagnostic criteria used to determine CD, including aggression toward people and animals, destruction of property, deceit, theft, and violation of rules specific to minors, such as school rules and curfew ordinances. Additionally, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders specifies the need to ask the child to self-report on matters of their emotional functioning; this is to determine if any antisocial characteristics persist in their life (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (US), n.d.). Given that a CD diagnosis can be a precursor to Antisocial Personality Disorder, research on the emotional experience perspective is an important factor to consider in interventions. 

In the past year, Delamillieure & Collins (2025) considered CD treatment engagement in children in relation to these antisocial factors, including callous and unemotional conduct as a specifier for antisocial behavior. Information on these specific traits sought to offer insight into what kind of treatments are beneficial and what can be predictive of future impairments with higher stakes. Although callous and unemotional (CU) traits are not a priority when drafting a treatment plan for CD, they are vital to consider. Through prosocial skill building and parenting training, they reinforce habits that will ultimately help lower CU traits. What can caregiver-focused training offer when accompanied by proper adolescent-focused interventions? 

Caregiver Training 

Common Sense Parenting (CSP), a type of Behavioral Parent Training (BPT), is a category of caregiver training specifically aimed toward parents with children receiving treatment for CD who face traits of callousness and unemotion (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (US), n.d.). In Mason et al. (2015), the CSP program was specifically examined to gain insight into its potential indirect effects on a child’s CD behaviors as they transition from middle school to high school. Given the high level of transition in the development of behaviors seen between middle school and high school, the study found that this was the best setting to experiment with this community. Through this intervention, coping emotional-regulatory skills were targeted and supported by parental choices. To ensure the parenting program was meeting the needs of adolescents while also supporting their development, a balance was struck between external and internal control. This was provided through consistent praise and appropriate discipline when needed. Since existing literature supports CSP as a successful caregiver training intervention, a crucial factor in examining the design of the program lied in evaluating whether or not these parenting skills continued to have positive effects on the children after a two-year follow-up (Mason et al., 2015). 

Substance use, school suspensions, and general problems of conduct were the information used to categorize whether the parenting program was effective. The two-year follow-up questionnaire for both parents and children revealed significant emotional regulation improvement compared to the time before the training was given. This suggested that the essential coping skills demonstrated at home, along with metacognitive teachings of self-regulation played a significant and long-lasting role in CD interventions (Mason et al., 2015). 


References

Da Silva, D. R., Rijo, D., Brazão, N., Paulo, M., Miguel, R., Castilho, P., Vagos, P., Gilbert, P., & Salekin, R. T. (2021). The efficacy of the PSYCHOPATHY.COMP program in reducing psychopathic traits: A controlled trial with male detained youth. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 89(6), 499–513. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000659

Delamillieure, E., Colins, O.F. Treatment Engagement and Multiple Specifiers among Boys and Girls with Conduct Disorder. Res Child Adolesc Psychopathol 53, 1499–1512 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-025-01353-7

Mason, W. A., January, S. A., Fleming, C. B., Thompson, R. W., Parra, G. R., Haggerty, K. P., & Snyder, J. J. (2015). Parent training to reduce problem behaviors over the transition to high school: Tests of indirect effects through improved emotion regulation skills. Children and Youth Services Review, 61, 176–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.12.022

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (US). (n.d.). Table 3.37, DSM-IV to DSM-5 Conduct Disorder Comparison - Impact of the DSM-IV to DSM-5 changes on the National Survey on Drug Use and Health - NCBI Bookshelf. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519704/table/ch3.t37/

Reil, J., Lambie, I., Horwood, J., & Becroft, A. (2020). Children who offend: Why are prevention and intervention efforts to reduce persistent criminality so seldom applied? Psychology Public Policy and Law, 27(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000286

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page