Skip Navigation

Early Head Start-Home Visiting (EHS-HV)§

Meets DHHS criteria for an evidenced based model

Last Updated: July 2016

Effects Shown in Research & Outcome Measure Details for Positive Parenting Practices Outcomes

Impact Studies Rated High


Chazan-Cohen, R., Raikes, H. H., & Vogel, C. (2013). V. Program subgroups: Patterns of impacts for home-based, center-based, and mixed-approach programs. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78(1), 93-109.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Children's books (26 or more) Favorable Home-based program approach Age 5 927 Not reported Not reported Not reported Statistically significant, p < 0.05 Study reported = 0.14 Secondary
HOME Language and Literacy Favorable Home-based program approach Age 5 927 Not reported Not reported Not reported Statistically significant, p < 0.05 Study reported = 0.16 Primary
Parent supportiveness during play No Effect Home-based program approach Age 5 927 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Study reported = 0.04 Secondary
Percent reading daily Favorable Home-based program approach Age 5 927 Not reported Not reported Not reported Statistically significant, p < 0.05 Study reported = 0.15 Secondary
Teaching activities Favorable Home-based program approach Age 5 927 Not reported Not reported Not reported Statistically significant, p < 0.05 Study reported = 0.15 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Children's books (26 or more) Percentage of parents who provided 26 or more children’s books in the home. Parent survey Not reported by author Secondary
HOME Language and Literacy The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) scale is a 45-item measure that assesses parenting practices and the child's home environment, including physical structure, play materials, and amount of stimulation. Parent/caregiver interview and observational assessment Not reported by author Primary
Parent supportiveness during play Parent behavior during play was coded. Parent behaviors reported include parental support (a composite of sensitivity, positive regard, and cognitive stimulation) and parent negative regard. Videotaped observation Intercoder agreement= 94% Secondary
Percent reading daily Percentage of parents who read to their child daily. Parent survey Not reported by author Secondary
Teaching activities Percentage of parents who engaged in eight or more teaching activities with their child. Parent survey Not reported by author Secondary

Love, J., Kisker, E., Ross, C., Schochet, P., Brooks-Gunn, J., Boller, K., et al. (2001). Building their futures: How Early Head Start programs are enhancing the lives of infants and toddlers in low-income families. Summary report. Report to Commissioner’s Office of Research and Evaluation, Head Start Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, and Department of Health and Human Services. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Covers electric outlets (percentage) No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 61% 57.2% -3.8 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.08 Secondary
Has gates or doors in front of stairs (percentage) No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 72.7% 75.5% -2.8 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.07 Secondary
Has poison control number (percentage) No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 36.5% 36.4% 0.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.00 Secondary
Has syrup of Ipecac at home (percentage) No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 30.2% 30.6% -0.4 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.01 Secondary
HOME absence of punitive interactions No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children Adjusted mean = 4.3 Adjusted mean = 4.3 MD = 0.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.01 Primary
HOME emotional responsivity No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children Adjusted mean = 6.5 Adjusted mean = 6.4 MD = 0.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.10 Primary
Home has working smoke alarm (percentage) No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 83.2% 83.3% -0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.00 Secondary
HOME maternal verbal/social skills No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children Adjusted mean = 2.9 Adjusted mean = 2.9 MD = 0.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.05 Primary
HOME support of cognitive, language, and literacy environment No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children Adjusted mean = 10.3 Adjusted mean = 10.1 MD = 0.2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.10 Primary
HOME total score Favorable EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children Adjusted mean = 26.9 Adjusted mean = 26.4 MD = 0.5 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Study-reported = 0.13 Primary
Index of discipline severity No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children Adjusted mean = 2.5 Adjusted mean = 2.6 MD = -0.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.06 Secondary
KIDI Favorable EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children Adjusted mean = 3.4 Adjusted mean = 3.3 MD = 0.1 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Study-reported = 0.17 Secondary
Observed child play area is safe (percentage) No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 74.6% 74.2% 0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.01 Primary
Parent-child activities to stimulate cognitive and language development No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children Adjusted mean = 4.5 Adjusted mean = 4.5 MD = 0.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.05 Primary
Percentage of parents and children that have regular bedtime routines No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 69.2% 65.1% 4.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.09 Secondary
Percentage of parents suggesting only mild responses to the hypothetical conflicts No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 48% 45.1% 2.9 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.06 Secondary
Percentage of parents that read to child as part of bedtime routine Favorable EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 26% 19.5% 6.5 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Study-reported = 0.16 Secondary
Percentage of parents that read to child daily No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 55.5% 54.4% 1.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.02 Secondary
Percentage of parents that set a regular bedtime for child No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 58.7% 54% 4.7 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.09 Secondary
Percentage of parents that suggest responses to hypothetical conflict with child: Physical punishment No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 23% 26.1% -3.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.07 Secondary
Percentage of parents that suggest responses to hypothetical conflict with child: Prevent or distract No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 69.6% 66.6% 3.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.07 Secondary
Percentage of parents that suggest responses to hypothetical conflict with child: Remove child or object No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 78.6% 80.4% -1.8 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.05 Secondary
Percentage of parents that suggest responses to hypothetical conflict with child: Shout No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 6% 3.6% 2.4 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.11 Secondary
Percentage of parents that suggest responses to hypothetical conflict with child: Talk and explain No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 34.1% 28.1% 6.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.13 Secondary
Percentage of parents that suggest responses to hypothetical conflict with child: Threaten or command No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 28.8% 28.2% 0.5 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.01 Secondary
Reading frequency No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children Adjusted mean = 4.6 Adjusted mean = 4.6 MD = 0.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.01 Secondary
Spanked child in last week (percentage) No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 49% 52.4% -3.4 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.07 Secondary
Uses a car seat (percentage) No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 81.1% 80.7% 0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.01 Secondary
Uses guards or gates for windows (percentage) No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 966 children 52.6% 55.4% -2.8 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.06 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Covers electric outlets Percentage of families who used covers for the electrical outlets that the child could reach in the home Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Has gates or doors in front of stairs Percentage of families who used guards or gates in front of their staircases Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Has poison control number Percentage of parents who had access to the poison control number in case of poison emergencies Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Has syrup of Ipecac at home Percentage of parents who kept syrup of Ipecac in the home in case of poison emergencies Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Home has working smoke alarm Percentage of families who had working smoke alarms in the home Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
HOME:
  • Emotional responsivity
  • Total score
  • Support of cognitive, language, and literacy environment
  • Maternal verbal/social skills
  • Absence of punitive interactions
The HOME assesses parenting practices and aspects of the home environment. Emotional responsivity measures the parent’s verbal responsivity to child, praise of child, and expressions of warmth and affection to child (sum of 7 observation items). Support of cognitive, language, and literacy environment measures the presence of toys, books, and developmentally appropriate furnishings and equipment. It also includes parental cognitive stimulation such as reading and talking to the child (sum of 12 items). Maternal verbal-social skills measures the parent’s ability to speak freely and clearly to the interviewer, with a maximum potential score of 3. Absence of punitive interactions measured harsh or punitive parenting behavior observed during the HOME interview. Items were scored 1 if the parent did not engage in the particular harsh or punitive behavior. Parent/caregiver interview and observational assessment Cronbach’s α = 0.74 (Emotional responsivity)
 
Cronbach’s α = 0.76 (Total score)
 
Cronbach’s α = 0.68 (Support of cognitive, language, and literacy environment)
 
Cronbach’s α = 0.71 (Maternal verbal/social skills)
 
Cronbach’s α = 0.78 (absence of punitive interactions)
Primary
KIDI The KIDI measures the parent’s knowledge of childrearing practices and developmental processes. The researchers selected a subset of 8 items from the 17 items used in the Infant Health and Development Program evaluation. Items were coded on a 4-point scale indicating the average level of accuracy of responses to each statement. Parent/caregiver report Cronbach’s α = .56 Secondary
Observed child play area is safe Percentage of families who had a safe child play area Interviewer observation Not applicable Primary
Parent-child activities to stimulate cognitive and language development The frequency with which the parent engaged in several activities with the child that can stimulate cognitive and language development, including reading or telling stories, dancing, singing, and playing outside together Parent/caregiver report Not reported by author Primary
Percentage of parents and children who have regular bedtime routines Percentage of parents who had regular routines with the child around bedtime, such as singing lullabies, putting toys away, or telling stories Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Percentage of parents who read to child as part of bedtime routine Percentage of parents who read to child as part of the regular bedtime routine and followed this routine four out of five weekdays in previous week Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Percentage of parents who read to child daily Percentage of parents who read to the child every day or more than once per day Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Percentage of parents who set a regular bedtime for child Percentage of parents who set a regular bedtime for the child, and the child was put to bed at that time four out of five weekdays in previous week Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Percentage of parents who suggest responses to hypothetical conflict with child:
  • Prevent or distract
  • Remove child or object
  • Talk and explain
  • Threaten or command
  • Shout
  • Physical punishment

Percentage of parents suggesting only mild responses to the hypothetical conflicts
 
Index of discipline severity
Parents were asked how they would respond to three situations: (1) child keeps playing with breakables; (2) child refuses to eat; and (3) child has a temper tantrum in a store. Responses were coded dichotomously with 1 if the reference technique is ever mentioned and 0 if not. The percentage of mild responses was a binary variable indicating parents who mentioned only the following types of responses for each situation: prevent the situation; distract the child; talk to the child or explain the issue; ignore the behavior; or remove the child or object. The index of severity measured the degree of harshness of discipline strategies suggested. An individual’s score on this index ranged from 1 to 5, and was determined by the harshest strategy that was suggested in response to any of the three conflict situations. Parent/caregiver report Not applicable
 
Not reported by author (for Index of discipline severity)
Secondary
Reading frequency A measure of the frequency with which parents read to their child Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Spanked child in last week Percentage of parents who had spanked the child in the previous week Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Uses a car seat Percentage of families who used a car seat for the child, and it was in the back seat of the car. Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Uses guards or gates for windows Percentage of families who used guards or gates for their windows Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Top

Impact Studies Rated Moderate


Love, J., Kisker, E., Ross, C. M., Schochet, P. Z., Brooks-Gunn, J., Paulsell, D., et al. (2002). Making a difference in the lives of infants and toddlers and their families: The impacts of Early Head Start. Volumes I-III: Final technical report [and] appendixes [and] local contributions to understanding the programs and their impacts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start Bureau.
Additional Sources:

Love, J. M., Kisker, E. E., Ross, C., Raikes, H., Constantine, J., Boller, K., et al. (2005). The effectiveness of Early Head Start for 3-year-old children and their parents: Lessons for policy and programs. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 885–901. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.885

Roggman, L. A., Boyce, L. K., Cook, G. A., & Hart, A. D. (2002). Making a difference in the lives of infants and toddlers and their families: The impacts of Early Head Start. Vol. 3, Local contributions to understanding the programs and their impacts. Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Child Outcomes Research and Evaluation.

Raikes, H. H., Chazan-Cohen, R., Love, J. M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Early Head Start impacts at age 3 and a description of the age 5 follow-up study. In Childhood Programs and Practices in the First Decade of Life: A Human Capital Integration. Reynolds, A.A., Rolnick, A.J., Englund, M.M, and Temple, J.A., eds. New York: Cambridge University Press, 99-118.

Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Detachment during parent-child puzzle challenge tasks No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 744 Children Adjusted mean = 1.6 Adjusted mean = 1.6 MD = 0.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.04 Primary
Detachment during parent-child semi-structured play No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 744 children Adjusted mean = 1.2 Adjusted mean = 1.3 MD = -0.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.09 Primary
HOME harshness No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 950 children Adjusted mean = 0.3 Adjusted mean = 0.3 MD = 0.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.06 Primary
HOME internal physical environment No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 950 children Adjusted mean = 8.0 Adjusted mean = 8.0 MD = 0.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.02 Primary
HOME total score No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 950 children Adjusted mean = 28.3 Adjusted mean = 28.1 MD = 0.2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.04 Primary
HOME warmth No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 950 children Adjusted mean = 2.7 Adjusted mean = 2.7 MD = 0.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.01 Primary
HOME: support of language and learning No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 950 children Adjusted mean = 10.9 Adjusted mean = 10.7 MD = 0.2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.07 Primary
Index of severity of discipline strategies No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 950 children Adjusted mean = 3.3 Adjusted mean = 3.3 MD = 0.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.02 Secondary
Intrusiveness during parent-child puzzle challenge task No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 744 Children Adjusted mean = 2.5 Adjusted mean = 2.6 MD = -0.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.09 Primary
Intrusiveness during parent-child semistructured play No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 744 Children Adjusted mean = 1.6 Adjusted mean = 1.6 MD = 0.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.06 Primary
Negative regard during parent-child semistructured play No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 744 children Adjusted mean = 1.2 Adjusted mean = 1.3 MD = -0.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.10 Primary
Parent-child play No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 744 children Adjusted mean = 4.4 Adjusted mean = 4.4 MD = 0.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.06 Primary
Percentage of children that follow a bedtime routine No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 950 children 72% 71% 1.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.02 Secondary
Percentage of children with a regular bedtime No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 950 children 59.3% 55.6% 3.7 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.07 Secondary
Percentage of parents suggesting physical punishment as a discipline strategy No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 950 children 44.9 44.5 0.4 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.01 Secondary
Percentage of parents that read to child at bedtime No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 950 children 29.6% 25.8% 3.8 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.08 Secondary
Percentage of parents that read to child daily No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 950 children 54.5% 55.7% -1.2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.02 Secondary
Percentage of parents that spanked child in the past week No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 950 children 44.1% 49.6% -5.5 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.11 Secondary
Percentage of parents that usually use a car seat correctly No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 950 children 70.4 69.4 1.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.02 Secondary
Percentage of parents that would use mild discipline only No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 950 children 45.8 45.9 -0.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.00 Secondary
Quality of assistance during parent-child puzzle challenge task No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 744 children Adjusted mean = 3.6 Adjusted mean = 3.5 MD = 0.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.03 Primary
Supportive presence during parent-child puzzle challenge task No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 3 744 children Adjusted mean = 4.6 Adjusted mean = 4.5 MD = 0.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.07 Primary
Supportiveness during parent-child semistructured play Favorable EHS-HV impact study Age 3 744 children Adjusted mean = 4.0 Adjusted mean = 3.9 MD = 0.1 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Study-reported = 0.16 Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
HOME:
  • Total score
  • Internal physical environment
  • Warmth
  • Harshness
  • Support of language and learning
The HOME assesses parenting practices and aspects of the home environment. In addition to a total score, four subscales were used. Warmth measured responsive and supportive parenting behavior. Items included whether the mother kissed or caressed the child during the visit, whether her voice conveyed positive feeling, and whether she praised the child. Scores ranged from 0, if none of the positive behaviors were observed, to 3, if all of the behaviors were observed. Harshness measured harsh or punitive parenting behavior observed during the HOME interview. Items included whether the parent scolded the child, physically restrained the child, or slapped or spanked the child. For this subscale (but not for the total HOME score), items were reverse-coded so that higher scores indicate greater harshness. Scores ranged from 0, if no harsh behavior was observed, to 3, if the three types of harsh behavior were observed. Support of language and learning measured the breadth and quality of the mother’s speech and verbal responses to the child, such as whether the parent encourages the child to learn shapes, colors, numbers, and the alphabet; the presence of books, toys, and games accessible to the child; and whether the parent read to the child several times per week. Internal physical environment measured the cleanliness, organization, and warmth of the home environment. Items in this subscale were each coded on a 3-point scale for this subscale (but on a binary scale for the total HOME) ranging from 3 to 9. Parent/caregiver interview and observational assessment Cronbach’s α = .80 (Total Score)
 
Cronbach’s α = .77 ( Internal physical environment)
 
Cronbach’s α = .72 (Warmth)
 
Cronbach’s α = .55 (Harshness)
 
Cronbach’s α = .67 (Support of language and learning)
 
Primary
Parent-child play Measured the frequency with which the parent engaged in several activities with the child that can stimulate cognitive and language development, including reading or telling stories, dancing, singing, and playing outside together Parent/caregiver report Cronbach’s α = .80 Primary
Percentage of children who follow a bedtime routine Percentage of parents who had regular routines with the child around bedtime, such as singing lullabies, putting toys away, or telling stories Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Percentage of children with a regular bedtime Percentage of parents who set a regular bedtime for the child, and the child was put to bed at that time four out of five weekdays in previous week Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Percentage of parents suggesting physical punishment as a discipline strategy
 
Percentage of parents who would use mild discipline only
 
Index of severity of discipline strategies
Parents were asked about strategies for handling four different potential conflict situations with the child: (1) the child keeps playing with breakable things; (2) the child refuses to eat; (3) the child throws a temper tantrum in a public place; and (4) the child hits the parent in anger. Parents provided open-ended answers to how they would respond to each of the four situations, and these responses were classified into discipline strategies that were coded as binary variables. Index of severity measured the degree of harshness of discipline strategies suggested. An individual’s score on this ranged from 1 to 5, and was determined by the harshest strategy that was suggested in response to any of the four conflict situations. Mild Discipline was a binary variable indicating parents who mentioned only the following types of responses for each situation: prevent the situation; distract the child; remove the child or object; talk to the child or explain the issue; ignore the behavior; put the child in time out; send the child to his or her room; threaten to take away treats or threaten time out; or tell child "No." Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Percentage of parents who read to child at bedtime Percentage of parents who read to child as part of the regular bedtime routine and followed this routine four out of five weekdays in previous week Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Percentage of parents who read to child daily Percentage of parents who read to the child every day or more than once per day Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Percentage of parents who spanked child in the past week Percentage of parents who had spanked the child in the previous week Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Percentage of parents who usually use a car seat correctly Percentage of families who used a car seat for the child, and it was in the back seat of the car Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Supportive presence during parent-child puzzle challenge task
 
Quality of assistance during parent-child puzzle challenge task
 
Detachment during parent-child puzzle challenge tasks
 
Intrusiveness during parent-child puzzle challenge task
The child was given a puzzle to play with, and the parent was instructed to give the child any help needed. After 3 minutes, or earlier if the puzzle was completed, the interviewer gave the child a second, harder puzzle and asked the mother not to help the child. If that puzzle was completed or 3 minutes elapsed, another, more challenging puzzle was provided. Child and parent behaviors were coded on a 7-point scale. Supportive presence measured the parent’s level of emotional support and enthusiasm toward the child and his or her work on the puzzles, displays of affection, and a positive attitude toward the child and his or her abilities. Quality of Assistance measured the frequency and quality of clear guidance to the child, flexible strategies for providing assistance, and diverse, descriptive verbal instructions and exchanges with the child. Detachment measured the extent to which the parent acted inattentive or indifferent toward the child. Intrusiveness measured the extent to which the parent controlled the child, rather than validating the child’s perspective and exploration. Higher scores indicate that the parent controlled the play agenda. Videotaped observation Cronbach’s α = .82 Primary
Supportiveness during parent-child semistructured play
 
Intrusiveness during parent-child semistructured play
 
Negative regard during parent-child semistructured play
 
Detachment during parent-child semistructured play
The parent and child were given three bags of toys and asked to play with the toys in sequence, and child and parent behaviors were coded. The assessment was adapted from the Three Box coding scales used in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Aspects of the parent’s behavior with the child were rated on a 7-point scale. Supportiveness was a measure of parental sensitivity, cognitive stimulation, and positive regard during play. Detachment measured the extent to which the parent was inattentive to the child, or interacted in a indifferent manner. Intrusiveness measured the degree to which the parent controlled the child, rather than recognizing and respecting the validity of the child’s independent efforts to solve the puzzle. Negative regard measured the parent’s expression of discontent with, anger toward, disapproval of, or rejection of the child. High scores on negative regard indicate that the parent used a disapproving or negative tone; showed frustration, anger, physical roughness, or harshness toward the child; threatened the child for failing at a task or not playing the way the parent desired; or belittled the child. Videotaped observation Not reported by author Primary

Love, J., Kisker, E., Ross, C., Schochet, P., Brooks-Gunn, J., Boller, K., et al. (2001). Building their futures: How Early Head Start programs are enhancing the lives of infants and toddlers in low-income families. Summary report. Report to Commissioner’s Office of Research and Evaluation, Head Start Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, and Department of Health and Human Services. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Parent-child structured play: Negative regard No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 794 children Adjusted mean = 1.4 Adjusted mean = 1.5 MD = -0.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.05 Primary
Parent-child structured play: Parent detachment No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 794 children Adjusted mean = 1.4 Adjusted mean = 1.5 MD = -0.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.15 Primary
Parent-child structured play: Parent intrusiveness No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 794 children Adjusted mean = 1.8 Adjusted mean = 1.9 MD = -0.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = -0.07 Primary
Parent-child structured play: Parent supportiveness No Effect EHS-HV impact study Age 2 794 children Adjusted mean = 4.0 Adjusted mean = 3.9 MD = 0.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study-reported = 0.14 Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Parent-child structured play:
  • Parent supportiveness
  • Parent detachment
  • Parent intrusiveness
  • Negative regard
Parent behavior during a structured play task was coded. Parent supportiveness was measured as contingent responsivity, positive regard, and cognitive stimulation. Parent detachment was measured as under-involvement, lack of awareness, attention, or engagement. Parent intrusiveness was measured as over-involvement or over-control. Parent negative regard was measured as discontent, anger, or rejection. Videotaped observation Not reported by author Primary
Top