Skip Navigation

Nurse Family Partnership (NFP)®

Meets DHHS criteria for an evidenced based model

Last Updated: May 2016

Effects Shown in Research & Outcome Measure Details for Child Development and School Readiness Outcomes

Impact Studies Rated High


Eckenrode, J., Campa, M., Luckey, D. W., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Kitzman, H., Anson, E., Sidora-Arcoleo, K., Powers, J., & Olds, D. (2010). Long-term effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on the life course of youths: 19-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(1), 9-15.
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
Graduated from high school No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira) 19-year follow-up 231 children 70.6%(adjusted) 74.5%(adjusted) Diff = -3.9 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 HomVEE = -0.12 Secondary
Graduated from high school No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 19-year follow-up 219 children 81.6%(adjusted) 74.5%(adjusted) Diff = 7.1 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 HomVEE = 0.25 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Graduated from high school Percentage of youth that had graduated from high school Adolescent report Not applicable Secondary

Holmberg, John; Luckey, Dennis; Olds, David. (2011) Teacher data for the Denver Year-9 follow-up. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Results with nurse home visitors.
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
Math Grades: Parent Report No Effect Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control Age 9 follow-up 374 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.14 Unadjusted mean = 3.21 MD = -0.07 p-value = 0.32 Study-reported = -0.11 Secondary
Reading Grades: Parent Report No Effect Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control Age 9 follow-up 375 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.14 Unadjusted mean = 3.18 MD = -0.04 p-value = 0.62 Study-reported = -0.05 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Math Grades: Parent Report Mean third-grade math grade point average Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Reading Grades: Parent Report Mean third-grade reading grade point average Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Results with paraprofessional home visitors.
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
ASPD Total Score - borderline/clinical No Effect Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control Age 9 follow-up 328 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.04 Unadjusted mean = 0.04 OR = 1.781 p-value = 0.37 HomVEE = 0.37 Primary
CBCL Externalizing - Dual Rater Clinical No Effect Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control Age 9 follow-up 320 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.14 Unadjusted mean = 0.14 OR = 1.41 p-value = 0.33 HomVEE = 0.2 Primary
CBCL Internalizing - Dual Rater Clinical No Effect Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control Age 9 follow-up 317 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.08 Unadjusted mean = 0.08 OR = 0.951 p-value = 0.9 HomVEE = -0.03 Primary
CBCL Total - Dual Rater Clinical No Effect Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control Age 9 follow-up 317 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.1 Unadjusted mean = 0.1 OR = 0.971 p-value = 0.94 HomVEE = -0.01 Primary
Current grade placement No Effect Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control Age 9 follow-up 321 mothers Unadjusted mean = 4.45 Unadjusted mean = 4.45 MD = 0.12 p-value = 0.13 Study-reported = 0.16 Primary
Learning support services: hrs/week No Effect Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control Age 9 follow-up 309 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.22 Unadjusted mean = 1.22 MD = -0.421 p-value = 0.4 Study-reported = -0.09 Primary
Math Grades: Parent Report No Effect Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control Age 9 follow-up 391 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.11 Unadjusted mean = 3.11 MD = -0.1 p-value = 0.16 Study-reported = -0.15 Secondary
Math Grades: School Report No Effect Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control Age 9 follow-up 305 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.51 Unadjusted mean = 2.51 MD = -0.17 p-value = 0.15 Study-reported = -0.15 Primary
Reading Grades: Parent Report No Effect Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control Age 9 follow-up 391 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.12 Unadjusted mean = 3.12 MD = -0.06 p-value = 0.47 Study-reported = -0.07 Secondary
Reading Grades: School Report No Effect Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control Age 9 follow-up 307 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.32 Unadjusted mean = 2.32 MD = -0.17 p-value = 0.14 Study-reported = -0.16 Primary
Special Education school report No Effect Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control Age 9 follow-up 308 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.16 Unadjusted mean = 0.16 OR = 1.011 p-value = 0.98 HomVEE = 0.01 Primary
Times sent to Principal"s office No Effect Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control Age 9 follow-up 326 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.44 Unadjusted mean = 1.44 MD = 0.142 p-value = 0.18 Study-reported = 0.15 Primary

1 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

2 Positive value is favorable to the comparison group.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
ASPD Total Score - borderline/clinical Antisocial ProcessScreening Device (ASPD) assessment detects antisocial processes in youth ages 6 through 13 years. Teacher report Not reported by authors Primary
CBCL Externalizing - Dual Rater Clinical Percentage of children rated as having externalizing problems on Achenbach’s Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Parent/caregiver report and teacher report Not reported by authors Primary
CBCL Internalizing - Dual Rater Clinical Percentage of children rated as having internalizing problems on Achenbach’s Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Parent/caregiver report and teacher report Not reported by authors Primary
CBCL Total - Dual Rater Clinical Percentage of children rated as having total behavioral problems on Achenbach’s Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Parent/caregiver report and teacher report Not reported by authors Primary
Current grade placement Mean current grade placement Not reported by authors Not applicable Primary
Learning support services: hrs/week Mean hours per week in learning support services Not reported by authors Not applicable Primary
Math Grades: Parent Report No description provided Parent report Not applicable Secondary
Math Grades: School Report Mean third-grade math grade point average Teacher report Not applicable Primary
Reading Grades: Parent Report No description provided Parent report Not applicable Secondary
Reading Grades: School Report Mean third-grade reading grade point average Teacher report Not applicable Primary
Special Education school report Not reported by authors Not reported by authors Not applicable Primary
Times sent to Principal's office Mean number of times sent to principal's office Not reported by authors Not applicable Primary

Kitzman, H. J., Olds, D. L., Cole, R. E., Hanks, C. A., Anson, E. A., Arcoleo, K. J., Luckey, D. W., Knudtson, M. D., Henderson, C. R., & Holmberg, J. R. (2010). Enduring effects of prenatal and infancy home visiting by nurses on children: Follow-up of a randomized trial among children at age 12 years. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(5), 412–418.
Results with nurse home visitors.
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
Conduct grades (grades 1–-6) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 635 children Mean = 2.95 Mean = 2.89 MD = 0.06 Not statistically significant, p > .05 HomVEE = 1.79 Primary
Conduct grades (grades 4–6) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 635 children Mean = 2.95 Mean = 2.88 MD = 0.07 Not statistically significant, p > .051 HomVEE = 1.87 Primary
Ever placed in special education (grades 1–6) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 635 children 14.8% (adjusted) 9.8% (adjusted) OR = 1.61 Not statistically significant, p > .05 HomVEE = 0.28 Primary
Ever retained No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 635 children 24.9% (adjusted) 20.8% (adjusted) OR = 1.26 Not statistically significant, p > .05 HomVEE = 0.14 Primary
GPA (reading and math) (grades 1–6) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 635 children Mean = 2.48 Mean = 2.39 MD = 0.09 Not statistically significant, p > .051 HomVEE = 2.07 Primary
GPA (reading and math) (grades 4–6) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 635 children Mean = 2.28 Mean = 2.2 MD = 0.08 Not statistically significant, p > .051 HomVEE = 1.70 Primary
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 1–6), percentile No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 578 children Mean = 42.34 Mean = 39.79 MD = 2.55 Not statistically significant, p > .051 HomVEE = 2.12 Primary
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 4–6), percentile No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 635 children Mean = 39.37 Mean = 38.27 MD = 1.09 Not statistically significant, p > .051 HomVEE = 0.89 Primary
Leiter-R Sustained Attention test scaled score No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 578children Mean = 8.68 Mean = 8.75 MD = -0.07 Not statistically significant, p > .05 HomVEE = -0.42 Primary
PIAT scores (reading and math) at 12 years No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 568 children Mean = 89.24 Mean = 87.96 MD = 1.27 Not statistically significant, p > .051 HomVEE = 2.25 Primary

1 Outcome examined with repeated measures.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Conduct grades (grades 1–-6) A scale of child conduct during grades 1 to 6 ranging from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 4 (honors) Review of school records  Not applicable Primary
Conduct grades (grades 4–6) A scale of child conduct during grades 4 to 6 ranging from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 4 (honors) Review of school records Not applicable Primary
Ever placed in special education (grades 1-6) Percentage of children that had ever been placed in special education during grades 1 to 6 Review of school records Not applicable Primary
Ever retained Percentage of children that had ever been grade retained during grades 1 to 6 Review of school records Not applicable Primary
GPA (reading and math) (grades 1–6) Reading and math end-of-year grade pointaverages (GPAs) in grades 1 through 6 (score ranges from 0 to 4)  Review of school records Not applicable  Primary
GPA (reading and math) (grades 4–6) Reading and math end-of-year grade pointaverages (GPAs) in grades 4 through 6 (score ranges from 0 to 4)  Review of school records Not applicable  Primary
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 1–6), percentile Reading and math achievement in terms of score percentiles derived from the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program test scores for grades 1 through 6 Review of school records Not reported by author Primary
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 4–6), percentile Reading and math achievement in terms of score percentiles derived from the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program test scores for grades 4 through 6 Review of school records Not reported by author Primary
Leiter-R Sustained Attention test scaled score Leiter-R Sustained Attention test assesses skills in memory or attention in children Direct assessment  Not reported by author Primary
PIAT scores (reading and math) at 12 years Peabody IndividualAchievement Tests (PIATs) assess reading, mathematics, and spelling ability in children  Child report Not reported by author Primary
Results for mothers with low psychological resources subgroup.
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
Conduct grades (grades 1-6) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 326 mothers Mean = 2.93 Mean = 2.86 MD = 0.07 Not statistically significant, p&gy; .051 HomVEE = 1.61 Secondary
Conduct grades (grades 4-6) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 326 mothers Mean = 2.91 Mean = 2.86 MD = 0.05 Not statistically significant, p > .051 HomVEE = 0.93 Primary
Ever placed in special education (grades 1-6) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 326 mothers 15% 15% OR = 0.97 Not statistically significant, p > .052 HomVEE = -0.02 Primary
Ever retained No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 326 mothers 23% 27% OR = 0.77 Not statistically significant, p > .052 HomVEE = -0.16 Primary
GPA (reading and math) (grades 1-6) Favorable Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 326 mothers Mean = 2.46 Mean = 2.27 MD = 0.20 Statistically significant, p < .051 HomVEE = 3.32 Primary
GPA (reading and math) (grades 4-6) Favorable Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 326 mothers Mean = 2.27 Mean = 2.08 MD = 0.19 Statistically significant, p < .051 HomVEE = 2.83 Primary
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 1-6), percentile1 Favorable Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 326 mothers Mean = 40.52 Mean = 34.85 MD = 5.67 Statistically significant, p < .05 HomVEE = 3.39 Primary
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 4-6), percentile1 No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 326 mothers Mean = 36.86 Mean = 33.67 MD = 3.19 Not statistically significant, p > .05 HomVEE = 1.87 Primary
Leiter-R Sustained Attention test scaled score No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 326 mothers Mean = 8.63 Mean = 8.72 MD = -0.09 Not statistically significant, p > .05 HomVEE = -0.39 Primary
PIAT scores (reading and math) at 12 years Favorable Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 12-year follow-up 326 mothers Mean = 88.78 Mean = 85.7 MD = 3.07 Statistically significant, p < .051 HomVEE = 3.91 Primary

1 Outcome examined with repeated measures.

2 Percentages adjusted for covariates in the model (household poverty and maternal childrearing attitudes).

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Conduct grades (grades 1-6) A scale of child conduct during grades 1 to 6 ranging from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 4 (honors) Review of school records  Not applicable Primary
Conduct grades (grades 4-6) A scale of child conduct during grades 4 to 6 ranging from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 4 (honors) Review of school records Not applicable Primary
Ever placed in special education (grades 1-6) Percentage of children that had ever been placed in special education during grades 1 to 6 Review of school records Not applicable Primary
Ever retained Percentage of children that had ever been grade retained during grades 1 to 6 Review of school records Not applicable Primary
GPA (reading and math) (grades 1–6) Reading and math end-of-year grade pointaverages (GPAs) in grades 1 through 6 (score ranges from 0 to 4)  Review of school records Not applicable  Primary
GPA (reading and math) (grades 4–6) Reading and math end-of-year grade pointaverages (GPAs) in grades 4 through 6 (score ranges from 0 to 4)  Review of school records Not applicable  Primary
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 1-6), percentile1 Reading and math achievement in terms of score percentiles derived from the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program test scores for grades 1 through 6 Review of school records Not reported by author Primary
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 4-6), percentile1 Reading and math achievement in terms of score percentiles derived from the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program test scores for grades 4 through 6 Review of school records Not reported by author Primary
Leiter-R Sustained Attention test scaled score Leiter-R Sustained Attention test assesses skills in memory or attention in children Direct assessment  Not reported by author Primary
PIAT scores (reading and math) at 12 years Peabody IndividualAchievement Tests (PIATs) assess reading, mathematics, and spelling ability in children  Child report Not reported by author Primary

Kitzman, H., Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Hanks, C., Cole, R., Tatelbaum, R., et al. (1997). Effect of prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses on pregnancy outcomes, childhood injuries, and repeated childbearing. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(8), 644–652.
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
BSID (total score) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 2 years postnatal 1,082 children Adjusted mean = 94.5 Adjusted mean = 94.3 MD = 0.2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
CBCL (total score) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 2 years postnatal 1,082 children Adjusted mean = 46.0 Adjusted mean = 49.2 MD = -3.2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
NCAST Child Responsiveness (total score) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 2 years postnatal 1,082 children Adjusted mean = 17.7 Adjusted mean = 17.4 MD = 0.3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
BSID The BSID tests the mental, motor, and behavioral development and abilities of young children. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
CBCL The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
NCAST Child Responsiveness Mothers and children were observed while the mothers taught their children a developmentally challenging task. The mothers’ behaviors were coded and summarized to characterize their sensitivity, responsiveness, and quality of teaching. The infants’ behaviors were coded and aggregated to characterize their responsiveness and clarity of communication toward their mothers. Observation conducted at the project offices Not reported by author Primary

Olds, D. L., Henderson Jr., C. R., Chamberlin, R., & Tatelbaum, R. (1986). Preventing child abuse and neglect: A randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics, 78, 65–78.
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
BSID MDI No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison 12 months 204 children Adjusted mean = 111.23 Adjusted mean = 109.94 MD = 1.29 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
BSID Mental Development Index (MDI) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison 12 months 199 children Adjusted mean = 105.44 Adjusted mean = 109.94 MD = -4.5 Statistical significance not reported Not available Primary
Cattell No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison 24 months 186 children Adjusted mean = 105.73 Adjusted mean = 106.49 MD = -0.76 Statistical significance not reported Not available Primary
Cattell No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison 24 months 193 children Adjusted mean = 109.34 Adjusted mean = 106.49 MD = 2.85 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
BSID Mental Development Index The MDI of the BSID assesses the cognitive functioning of young children. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
Cattell The Cattell assesses mental ability in young children. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary

Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., & Kitzman, H. (1994). Does prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation have enduring effects on qualities of parental caregiving and child health at 25 to 50 months of life? Pediatrics, 93(1), 89–98.
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
Stanford Binet No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 36 months 226 children Adjusted mean = 104.20 Adjusted mean = 101.95 MD = 2.25, Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
Stanford Binet No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 36 months 236 children Adjusted mean = 103.57 Adjusted mean = 101.95 MD = 1.62 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
Stanford Binet No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 48 months 226 children Adjusted mean = 111.25 Adjusted mean = 108.93 MD = 2.32 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
Stanford Binet No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 48 months 236 children Adjusted mean = 111.52 Adjusted mean = 108.93 MD = 2.59 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Stanford Binet The Stanford Binet Form L-M assesses intelligence in young children. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary

Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., et al. (1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children’s criminal and antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(14), 1238–1244.
Additional Source:

Olds, D. L. (1999). "Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children's criminal and antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial": Reply. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 281(15), 1377.

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
Number of internalizing problems No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 15-year follow-up 227 adolescent youth Adjusted mean = 11.19 Adjusted mean = 10.58 MD = 0.61 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.46
Not available Secondary
Number of internalizing problems No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 15-year follow-up 245 adolescent youth Adjusted mean = 11.66 Adjusted mean = 10.58 MD = 1.08 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.19
Not available Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Number of externalizing problems An average of parent and child reports of externalizing behavioral problems Parent/caregiver and child report Not reported by author Secondary
Number of internalizing problems An average of parent and child reports of internalizing behavioral problems Parent/caregiver and child report Not reported by author Secondary

Olds, D. L., Holmberg, J. R., Donelan-McCall, N., Luckey, D. W., Knudtson, M. D., & Robinson, J. (2014). Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by nurses on children follow-up of a randomized trial at ages 6 and 9 years. JAMA Pediatrics, 168(2), 114-121.
Results with paraprofessional home visitors.
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
Attention dysfunction - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2 No Effect Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver) 9 years 394 children Unadjusted mean = 0.03 Unadjusted mean = 0.05 MD = -0.031 Not statistically significant, p = 0.22 Study reported = 0.53 Primary
Externalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 2 No Effect Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver) 6 years 411 children Unadjusted mean = 0.09 Unadjusted mean = 0.10 MD = -0.011 Not statistically significant, p = 0.66 Study reported = 0.87 Primary
Externalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2 No Effect Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver) 9 years 394 children Unadjusted mean = 0.14 Unadjusted mean = 0.10 MD = 0.041 Not statistically significant, p = 0.33 Study reported = 1.34 Primary
Internalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 2 No Effect Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver) 6 years 411 children Unadjusted mean = 0.04 Unadjusted mean = 0.03 MD = 0.011 Not statistically significant, p = 0.60 Study reported = 1.35 Primary
Internalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2 No Effect Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver) 9 years 394 children Unadjusted mean = 0.08 Unadjusted mean = 0.08 MD = 0.001 Not statistically significant, p = 0.90 Study reported = 0.96 Primary
Total behavioral problems - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 2 No Effect Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver) 6 years 411 children Unadjusted mean = 0.08 Unadjusted mean = 0.08 MD = 0.001 Not statistically significant, p = 0.91 Study reported = 1.04 Primary
Total behavioral problems - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2 No Effect Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver) 9 years 394 children Unadjusted mean = 0.09 Unadjusted mean = 0.10 MD = 0.001 Not statistically significant, p = 0.94 Study reported = 0.97 Primary

1 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Attention dysfunction - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2 Percent of children with attention dysfunction, as measured by the Conners' Continuous Performance Test and scores greater than 60 on the Clinical Confidence Index. Child assessment Norm-referenced measure Primary
Externalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 2 Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for externalizing behavior. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report Norm-referenced measure Primary
Externalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2 Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for externalizing behavior. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report Norm-referenced measure Primary
Internalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 2 Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for internalizing behavior. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report Norm-referenced measure Primary
Internalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2 Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for internalizing behavior. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report Norm-referenced measure Primary
Total behavioral problems - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 2 Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for total behavioral problems. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report Norm-referenced measure Primary
Total behavioral problems - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2 Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for total behavioral problems. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report Norm-referenced measure Primary
Results with nurse home visitors.
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
Attention dysfunction - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 3 No Effect Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver) 9 years 378 children Unadjusted mean = 0.02 Unadjusted mean = 0.05 MD = -0.041 Not statistically significant, p = 0.07 Study reported = 0.34 Primary
Externalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 3 No Effect Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver) 6 years 396 children Unadjusted mean = 0.08 Unadjusted mean = 0.10 MD = -0.031 Not statistically significant, p = 0.42 Study reported = 0.76 Primary
Internalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 3 No Effect Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver) 6 years 396 children Unadjusted mean = 0.01 Unadjusted mean = 0.03 MD = -0.021 Not statistically significant, p = 0.28 Study reported = 0.42 Primary
Total behavioral problems - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 3 No Effect Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver) 6 years 396 children Unadjusted mean = 0.04 Unadjusted mean = 0.08 MD = -0.041 Not statistically significant, p = 0.08 Study reported = 0.45 Primary

1 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Attention dysfunction - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 3 Percent of children with attention dysfunction, as measured by the Conners' Continuous Performance Test and scores greater than 60 on the Clinical Confidence Index. Child assessment Norm-referenced measure Primary
Externalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 3 Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for externalizing behavior. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report Norm-referenced measure Primary
Internalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 3 Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for internalizing behavior. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report Norm-referenced measure Primary
Total behavioral problems - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 3 Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for total behavioral problems. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report Norm-referenced measure Primary

Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H., Cole, R., Robinson, J., Sidora, K., Luckey, D. W., et al. (2004). Effects of nurse home-visiting on maternal life course and child development: Age 6 follow-up results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 114(6), 1550–1559
Results with nurse home visitors.
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
CBCL (externalizing problems) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 615 children 17.4% (adjusted) 20.2% (adjusted) OR = 0.83 Not statistically significant, p = 0.43 HomVEE = -0.11 Secondary
CBCL (internalizing problems) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 615 children 12.6% (adjusted) 14.7% (adjusted) OR = 0.84 Not statistically significant, p = 0.50 HomVEE = -0.11 Primary
CBCL (total problems) Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 615 children 2% (adjusted) 5% (adjusted) OR = 0.32 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
1
HomVEE = -0.37 Primary
Child attended Head Start, preschool, day care, or early intervention, age 24–54 months Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 641 mothers 82% (adjusted) 75% (adjusted) OR = 1.53 Statistically significant,
p = 0.05
1
HomVEE = 0.26 Secondary
HTC Rating Scale (classroom social skills) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 615 children Adjusted mean = 24.93
SE = 0.89
Adjusted mean = 24.53
SE = 0.59
MD = 0.40 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.71
Study-reported = 0.03 Primary
HTC Rating Scale(academic engagement) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 615 children Adjusted mean = 6.16
SE = 1.63
Adjusted mean = 6.86
SE = 1.08
MD = -0.70 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.72
Study-reported = -0.03 Primary
KABC arithmetic achievement No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 615 children Adjusted mean = 89.75
SE = 0.92
Adjusted mean = 88.61
SE = 0.62
MD = 1.14 Not statistically significant, p = 0.30 Study-reported = 0.09 Primary
KABC mental processing composite (arithmetic and reading) Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 615 children Adjusted mean = 92.34
SE = 0.82
Adjusted mean = 90.24
SE = 0.54
MD = 2.10 Statistically significant,
p = 0.03
Study-reported = 0.18 Primary
KABC reading achievement No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 615 children Adjusted mean = 93.79
SE = 0.93
Adjusted mean = 93.56
SE = 0.62
MD = 0.23 Not statistically significant, p = 0.84 Study-reported = 0.02 Primary
MSSB (dysregulated aggression index) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 615 children Adjusted mean = 99.24
SE = 0.74
Adjusted mean = 100.26
SE = 0.49
MD = -1.02 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.26
Study-reported = -0.10 Primary
MSSB (percentage incoherent stories) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 615 children Adjusted mean = 21.15
SE = 1.84
Adjusted mean = 25.22
SE = 1.23
MD = -4.07 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.07
Study-reported = -0.16 Primary
MSSB (warmth/empathy index) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 615 children Adjusted mean = 100.86
SE = 0.73
Adjusted mean = 99.51
SE = 0.49
MD = 1.35 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.13
Study-reported = 0.14 Primary
PPVT-III receptive vocabulary Favorable Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 615 children Adjusted mean = 84.32
SE = 0.89
Adjusted mean = 82.13
SE = 0.59
MD = 2.19 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
Study-reported = 0.17 Primary

1 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
CBCL (total problems) The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children. The researchers used the assessment to examine the aggregate internalizing and externalizing problems of the child. Parent/caregiver report Not reported by author Primary
Child attended Head Start, preschool, day care, or early intervention, age 24–54 months Percentage of children who attended Head Start, preschool, day care, or an early intervention Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
HTC Rating Scale:
  • Academic engagement
  • Classroom social skills
Children’s classroom behavior was summarized into two scales derived from principal components analysis: (1) the degree to which children were engaged with school, and (2) their classroom socioemotional adjustment. Teacher report academic engagement: Cronbach’s α = 0.96
Classroom social skills: Cronbach’s α = 0.92
Primary
KABC: Mental processing composite (arithmetic and reading) The KABC assesses achievement and intelligence in young children. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
MSSB: Dysregulated aggression index Children’s responses to eight story stems were videotaped and coded for a series of content themes, observable affective expressions, and coherence in completing the stories. The coding scheme and constructs were adapted explicitly for low-income black children with a combination of theory, prior research, and factor analysis to characterize children’s representations of dysregulated aggressive behavior and parental warmth/empathy themes in their stories and whether each story completion was incoherent. Codes were averaged for all stories, and components were standardized before aggregation. Videotaped observation Cronbach’s α = 0.67, Interobserver Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.83 Primary
MSSB: Percentage incoherent stories Children’s responses to eight story stems were videotaped and coded for a series of content themes, observable affective expressions, and coherence in completing the stories. The coding scheme and constructs were adapted explicitly for low-income black children with a combination of theory, prior research, and factor analysis to characterize children’s representations of dysregulated aggressive behavior and parental warmth/empathy themes in their stories and whether each story completion was incoherent. Codes were averaged for all stories, and components were standardized before aggregation. Videotaped observation Cronbach’s α = 0.49, Interobserver Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.68 Primary
MSSB: Warmth/empathy index Children’s responses to eight story stems were videotaped and coded for a series of content themes, observable affective expressions, and coherence in completing the stories. The coding scheme and constructs were adapted explicitly for low-income black children with a combination of theory, prior research, and factor analysis to characterize children’s representations of dysregulated aggressive behavior and parental warmth/empathy themes in their stories and whether each story completion was incoherent. Codes were averaged for all stories, and components were standardized before aggregation. Videotaped observation Cronbach’s α = 0.68, Interobserver Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.68 Primary
PPVT-III The PPVT-III assesses receptive vocabulary for Standard American English in young children. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
Results for mothers with low psychological resources subgroup.
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
CBCL (externalizing problems) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 335 children 22% (Adjusted) 24% (Adjusted) OR = 0.87 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.63
HomVEE = -0.09 Primary
CBCL (internalizing problems) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 335 children 20% (Adjusted) 17% (Adjusted) OR = 1.30 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.40
HomVEE = .16 Primary
CBCL (total problems, percentage) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 335 children 3.7%, (Adjusted) 6.6%, (Adjusted) Diff = -2.9 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.31
Study-reported = -0.37 Primary
HTC Rating Scale(academic engagement) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 335 children Adjusted mean = 4.74 Adjusted mean = 4.23 MD = 0.51 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.86
Study-reported = 0.02 Primary
HTC Rating Scale(classroom social skills) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 335 children Adjusted mean = 24.54 Adjusted mean = 22.92 MD = 1.62 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.27
Study-reported = 0.14 Primary
KABC arithmetic achievement Favorable Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 335 children Adjusted mean = 88.61 Adjusted mean = 85.42 MD = 3.19 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
Study-reported = 0.25 Primary
KABC mental processing composite (arithmetic and reading) Favorable Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 335 children Adjusted mean = 90.49 Adjusted mean = 87.64 MD = 2.85 Statistically significant,
p = 0.03
Study-reported = 0.25 Primary
KABC reading achievement No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 335 children Adjusted mean = 92.07 Adjusted mean = 90.87 MD = 1.2 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.44
Study-reported = 0.09 Secondary
MSSB (dysregulated aggression index) Favorable Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 335 children Adjusted mean = 98.58 Adjusted mean = 101.10 MD = -2.52 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
Study-reported = -0.25 Primary
MSSB (percentage incoherent stories) Favorable Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 335 children Adjusted mean = 20.90 Adjusted mean = 29.84 MD = -8.94 Statistically significant,
p < 0.01
Study-reported = -0.34 Primary
MSSB (warmth/ empathy index) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 335 children Adjusted mean = 100.30 Adjusted mean = 98.98 MD = 1.32 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.27
Study-reported = 0.13 Primary
PPVT-III receptive vocabulary No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 6-year follow-up 335 children Adjusted mean = 81.75 Adjusted mean = 79.08 MD = 2.67 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.07
Study-reported = 0.21 Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
CBCL (total problems) The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children. The researchers used the assessment to examine the aggregate internalizing and externalizing problems of the child. Parent/caregiver report Not reported by author Primary
Child attended Head Start, preschool, day care, or early intervention, age 24–54 months Percentage of children who attended Head Start, preschool, day care, or an early intervention Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
HTC Rating Scale: Academic engagement Children’s classroom behavior was summarized into two scales derived from principal components analysis: (1) the degree to which children were engaged with school, and (2) their classroom socioemotional adjustment. Teacher report Cronbach’s α = 0.96 Primary
HTC Rating Scale: Classroom social skills Children’s classroom behavior was summarized into two scales derived from principal components analysis: (1) the degree to which children were engaged with school, and (2) their classroom socioemotional adjustment. Teacher report Cronbach’s α = 0.92 Primary
KABC: Mental processing composite (arithmetic and reading) The KABC assesses achievement and intelligence in young children. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
MSSB: Dysregulated aggression index Children’s responses to eight story stems were videotaped and coded for a series of content themes, observable affective expressions, and coherence in completing the stories. The coding scheme and constructs were adapted explicitly for low-income black children with a combination of theory, prior research, and factor analysis to characterize children’s representations of dysregulated aggressive behavior and parental warmth/empathy themes in their stories and whether each story completion was incoherent. Codes were averaged for all stories, and components were standardized before aggregation. Videotaped observation Cronbach’s α = 0.67, Interobserver Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.83 Primary
MSSB: Percentage incoherent stories Children’s responses to eight story stems were videotaped and coded for a series of content themes, observable affective expressions, and coherence in completing the stories. The coding scheme and constructs were adapted explicitly for low-income black children with a combination of theory, prior research, and factor analysis to characterize children’s representations of dysregulated aggressive behavior and parental warmth/empathy themes in their stories and whether each story completion was incoherent. Codes were averaged for all stories, and components were standardized before aggregation. Videotaped observation Cronbach’s α = 0.49, Interobserver Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.68 Primary
MSSB: Warmth/empathy index Children’s responses to eight story stems were videotaped and coded for a series of content themes, observable affective expressions, and coherence in completing the stories. The coding scheme and constructs were adapted explicitly for low-income black children with a combination of theory, prior research, and factor analysis to characterize children’s representations of dysregulated aggressive behavior and parental warmth/empathy themes in their stories and whether each story completion was incoherent. Codes were averaged for all stories, and components were standardized before aggregation. Videotaped observation Cronbach’s α = 0.68, Interobserver Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.68 Primary
PPVT-III The PPVT-III assesses receptive vocabulary for Standard American English in young children. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary

Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H., Hanks, C., Cole, R., Anson, E., Sidora-Arcoleo, K., et al. (2007). Effects of nurse home visiting on maternal and child functioning: Age-9 follow-up of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 120(4), e832–e845.
Results with nurse home visitors.
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
Achievement tests (reading and math, grades 1–3) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 570 children Adjusted mean = 44.61
SE = 1.86
Adjusted mean = 41.63
SE = 1.34
MD = 2.98 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.17
2
Study-reported = 0.11 Primary
Any academic failures (grades 1–3) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 604 children 0.07 0.05 MD = 2.0 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.37
2
HomVEE = 0.20 Primary
Conduct grades (grades 1–3 ) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 604 children Adjusted mean = 2.71
SE = 0.07
Adjusted mean = 2.68
SE = 0.04
MD = 0.03 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.67
2
Study-reported = 0.03 Primary
Count of conduct failures, (grades 1–3) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 604 children Adjusted mean = 0.06 Adjusted mean = 0.10 MD = -0.04 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.09
2
Not available Primary
Count of depressive and anxiety disorders No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 604 children Adjusted mean = 0.12 Adjusted mean = 0.19 MD = -0.07 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.12
1
Not available Secondary
Count of disruptive behavior disorders (with impairment) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 604 children Adjusted mean = 0.36 Adjusted mean = 0.31 MD = -0.05 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.42
1
Not available Secondary
Ever placed in special education (grades 1–3) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 604 children 0.02 0.02 MD = 0 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.97
2
HomVEE = -0.03 Primary
Ever retained (grades 1–3) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 604 children 0.16 0.12 MD = 4.0 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.25
2
HomVEE = 0.18 Primary
GPA (reading and math, grades 1–3) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 604 children Adjusted mean = 2.69
SE = 0.06
Adjusted mean = 2.59
SE = 0.04
MD = 0.10 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.20
2
Study-reported = 0.09 Primary
Teacher reported peer affiliation (grade 3) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 558 children Adjusted mean = 100.35
SE = 0.77
Adjusted mean = 99.92
SE = 0.51
MD = 0.43 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.64
2
Study-reported = 0.04 Secondary
Teacher-reported academically focused behavior (grade 3) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 558 children Adjusted mean = 100.10
SE = 0.77
Adjusted mean = 100.08
SE = 0.51
MD = 0.02 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.98
2
Study-reported = 0.00 Secondary
Teacher-reported antisocial behavior (grade 3) No Effect Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 558 children Adjusted mean = 99.77
SE = 0.77
Adjusted mean = 100.08
SE = 0.51
MD = -0.31 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.74
2
Study-reported = -0.03 Secondary

1 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculation of incidence ratio.

2 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Achievement tests Scores received on achievement tests (primarily the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program Achievement Test) during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records Not reported by author Primary
Any academic failures (grades 1–3) Percentage of children who had any academic failures during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records Not reported by author Primary
Conduct grades Ratings of the child’s conduct at school during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records Not reported by author Primary
Count of conduct failures Counts of conduct failures at the end of each school year during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records Not reported by author Primary
Count of depressive and anxiety disorders Counts of depressive and anxiety disorders reported in the past year (major depression, dysthymia, generalized anxiety, separation anxiety, and social phobia) with actual values ranging between 0 and 5 Parent/caregiver report Not reported by author Secondary
Count of disruptive behavior disorders (with impairment) Counts of disruptive behavior disorders reported in the past year (either oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder, and attention-deficit disorder of any type), with actual values ranging between 0 and 2 Parent/caregiver report Not reported by author Secondary
Ever placed in special education (grades 1–3) Percentage of children who had ever been placed in special education Review of school records Not reported by author Primary
Ever retained (grades 1–3) Percentage of children who had ever been retained during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records Not reported by author Primary
GPA Grades received in math and reading during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records Not reported by author Primary
Teacher-reported academically focused behavior Reports of children’s behavior in the classroom over the previous year from the Social Competence Scale, Social Health Profile, and the Teacher Observation of Child Adjustment Revised were subjected to principal axis analysis. Three scales were formed: (1) antisocial behavior, (2) academically focused behavior, and (3) peer affiliation. Teacher report Cronbach’s α = 0.95 Secondary
Teacher-reported antisocial behavior Reports of children’s behavior in the classroom over the previous year from the Social Competence Scale, Social Health Profile, and the Teacher Observation of Child Adjustment Revised were subjected to principal axis analysis. Three scales were formed: (1) antisocial behavior, (2) academically focused behavior, and (3) peer affiliation. Teacher report Cronbach’s α = 0.95 Secondary
Teacher-reported peer affiliation Reports of children’s behavior in the classroom over the previous year from the Social Competence Scale, Social Health Profile, and the Teacher Observation of Child Adjustment Revised were subjected to principal axis analysis. Three scales were formed: (1) antisocial behavior, (2) academically focused behavior, and (3) peer affiliation. Teacher report Cronbach’s α = 0.80 Secondary
Results for mothers with low psychological resources subgroup.
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
Achievement tests (reading and math, grades 1 – 3) Favorable Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 333 children, Adjusted mean = 44.89
SE = 2.53
Adjusted mean = 35.72
SE = 1.78
MD = 9.17 Statistically significant,
p < 0.01
Study-reported = 0.33 Primary
Conduct grades (grades 1 – 3) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 333 children, Adjusted mean = 2.68
SE = 0.09
Adjusted mean = 2.65
SE = 0.06
MD = 0.03 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.75
Study-reported = 0.03 Primary
GPA (reading and math, grades 1 – 3) Favorable Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 333 children, Adjusted mean = 2.68
SE = 0.09
Adjusted mean = 2.44
SE = 0.06
MD = 0.24 Statistically significant,
p = 0.02
Study-reported = 0.22 Primary
Teacher-reported academically focused behavior (grade 3) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 333 children, Adjusted mean = 99.59
SE = 1.05
Adjusted mean = 98.70
SE = 0.70
MD = 0.89 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.47
Study-reported = 0.09 Secondary
Teacher-reported antisocial behavior (grade 3) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9-year follow-up 333 children, Adjusted mean = 100.18
SE = 1.06
Adjusted mean = 100.17
SE = 0.71
MD = 0.01 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.99
Study-reported = 0.00 Secondary
Teacher-reported peer affiliation (grade 3) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 9 year follow-up 333 children, Adjusted mean = 99.56
SE = 1.06
Adjusted mean = 99.37
SE = 0.70
MD = 0.19 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.88
Study-reported = 0.02 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Achievement tests Scores received on achievement tests (primarily the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program Achievement Test) during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records Not reported by author Primary
Any academic failures (grades 1–3) Percentage of children who had any academic failures during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records Not reported by author Primary
Conduct grades Ratings of the child’s conduct at school during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records Not reported by author Primary
Count of conduct failures Counts of conduct failures at the end of each school year during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records Not reported by author Primary
Count of depressive and anxiety disorders Counts of depressive and anxiety disorders reported in the past year (major depression, dysthymia, generalized anxiety, separation anxiety, and social phobia) with actual values ranging between 0 and 5 Parent/caregiver report Not reported by author Secondary
Count of disruptive behavior disorders (with impairment) Counts of disruptive behavior disorders reported in the past year (either oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder, and attention-deficit disorder of any type), with actual values ranging between 0 and 2 Parent/caregiver report Not reported by author Secondary
Ever placed in special education (grades 1–3) Percentage of children who had ever been placed in special education Review of school records Not reported by author Primary
Ever retained (grades 1–3) Percentage of children who had ever been retained during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records Not reported by author Primary
GPA Grades received in math and reading during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records Not reported by author Primary
Teacher-reported antisocial behavior, academically focused behavior, peer affiliation Reports of children’s behavior in the classroom over the previous year from the Social Competence Scale, Social Health Profile, and the Teacher Observation of Child Adjustment Revised were subjected to principal axis analysis. Three scales were formed: (1) antisocial behavior, (2) academically focused behavior, and (3) peer affiliation. Teacher report antisocial behavior - Cronbach’s α = 0.95,
academically focused behavior - Cronbach’s α = 0.95,
Peer affiliation - Cronbach’s α = 0.80
Secondary

Olds, D. L., Robinson, J., O’Brien, R., Luckey, D. W., Pettitt, L. M., Henderson, C. R., et al. (2002). Home visiting by paraprofessionals and by nurses: A randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics, 110(3), 486.
Results with nurse home visitors.
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
PLS-3 (language delay) Favorable Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 21 months 406 children 6% (adjusted) 12% (adjusted) OR = 0.48 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
HomVEE = -0.45 Primary
PLS-3 (language development) No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 21 months 406 children Adjusted mean = 101.22 Adjusted mean = 99.49 MD = 1.73 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
PLS-3 (language delay and language development) The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. To examine language delay, scores < 85 were considered delayed. For language development, the outcome was analyzed as continuous. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
Results with paraprofessional home visitors.
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
BSID (mental development delay) No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 24 months 392 children 14% (adjusted) 13% (adjusted) OR = 1.07 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
BSID (Mental Developmental Index) No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 24 months 392 children Adjusted mean = 89.45 Adjusted mean = 89.38 MD = 0.07 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
CBCL No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 24 months 392 children Adjusted mean = 45.49 Adjusted mean = 45.26 MD = 0.23 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
Irritable temperament (video coding) No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 6 months 377 children Adjusted mean = 2.83 Adjusted mean = 2.84 MD = -0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
Low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding) No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 6 months 377 children 26% (adjusted) 28% (adjusted) OR = 0.89 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = -0.06 Primary
Low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding) No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 6 months 377 children 31% (adjusted) 34% (adjusted) OR = 0.88 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = -0.08 Primary
PLS-3 (language delay) No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 21 months 420 children 11% (adjusted) 12% (adjusted) OR = 0.90 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = -0.06 Primary
PLS-3 (language development) No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 21 months 420 children Adjusted mean = 99.89 Adjusted mean = 99.49 MD = 0.40 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
Vulnerable: fear stimuli (video coding) No Effect Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 6 months 377 children 18% (adjusted) 25% (adjusted) OR = 0.67 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = -0.25 Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
BSID: Mental development delay and Mental Development Index The MDI of the BSID assesses the cognitive functioning of young children. For mental development delay, children with MDI scores <77 were classified as delayed. For mental development, the MDI scores were analyzed as continuous. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
CBCL (Behavioral problem score) The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
Irritable temperament No description provided by author Videotaped observation Not reported by author Primary
PLS-3 (language delay) The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. To examine language delay, scores <85 were considered delayed. For language development, the outcome was analyzed as continuous. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
PLS-3 (language development) ThePLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. For language development, the outcome was analyzed as continuous. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
Vulnerable: fear stimuli (video coding), Low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding), Low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding) Children’s emotional reactivity and looking at mother were videotaped and coded separately for their responses to stimuli designed to elicit fear, joy, and anger. The reactivity and looking-at-mother dimensions were dichotomized at the mean and cross-classified. Vulnerable infants exhibited high reactivity and low looking at mother in response to fear stimuli. Low vitality infants exhibited low reactivity and low looking at mother in response to joy and anger stimuli. High vitality infants exhibited high reactivity and frequent looking at mother in response to stimuli. Videotaped observation Not reported by author Primary
Results for mothers with low psychological resources subgroup and nurse home visitors.
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
BSID (mental development delay) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 24-month follow-up 136 children 0.1 0.19 OR = 0.48 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
2
HomVEE = -0.12 Primary
BSID (mental development index) Favorable Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 24-month follow-up 136 children Adjusted mean = 90.18 Adjusted mean = 86.20 MD = 3.98 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
1
Not available Primary
CBCL No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 24-month follow-up 136 children Adjusted mean = 48.13 Adjusted mean = 49.25 MD = -1.12 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
Infant low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding) Favorable Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 6-month follow-up 138 children 0.13 0.32 OR = 0.33 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
HomVEE = -0.31 Primary
Infant low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding) Favorable Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 6-month follow-up 138 children 0.24 0.4 OR = 0.46 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
HomVEE = -0.45 Primary
Infant vulnerability: fear stimuli (video coding) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 6-month follow-up 138 children 0.12 0.21 OR = 0.51 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
2
HomVEE = -0.34 Primary
Irritable temperament No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 6-month follow-up 138 children Adjusted mean = 2.88 Adjusted mean = 2.92 MD = -0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Secondary
PLS-3 (language delay) Favorable Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 21-month follow-up 142 children 0.07 0.18 OR = 0.32 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
HomVEE = -0.65 Primary
PLS-3 (language development) Favorable Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 21-month follow-up 142 children Adjusted mean = 101.52 Adjusted mean = 96.85 MD = 4.67 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
Not available Primary

1 The confidence interval includes 0, but according to the study, the result is statistically significant (α = 0.05).

2 Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
BSID: Mental development delay The MDI of the BSID assesses the cognitive functioning of young children. For mental development delay, children with MDI scores <77 were classified as delayed. For mental development, the MDI scores were analyzed as continuous. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
BSID: Mental Development Index The MDI of the BSID assesses the cognitive functioning of young children. For mental development, the MDI scores were analyzed as continuous. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
CBCL The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
Irritable temperament No description provided by author. Videotaped observation Not reported by author Primary
PLS-3 (language delay) The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. To examine language delay, scores <85 were considered delayed. For language development, the outcome was analyzed as continuous. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
PLS-3 (language delay), PLS-3 (language development) The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. To examine language delay, scores <85 were considered delayed. For language development, the outcome was analyzed as continuous. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
PLS-3 (language development) The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. For language development, the outcome was analyzed as continuous. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
Vulnerable: fear stimuli (video coding), Low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding), Low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding) Children’s emotional reactivity and looking at mother were videotaped and coded separately for their responses to stimuli designed to elicit fear, joy, and anger. The reactivity and looking-at-mother dimensions were dichotomized at the mean and cross-classified. Vulnerable infants exhibited high reactivity and low looking at mother in response to fear stimuli. Low vitality infants exhibited low reactivity and low looking at mother in response to joy and anger stimuli. High vitality infants exhibited high reactivity and frequent looking at mother in response to stimuli. Videotaped observation Not reported by author Primary
Results for mothers with low psychological resources subgroup and paraprofessional home visitors.
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
BSID (Mental development delay) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 24-month follow-up 163 children 0.19 0.19 OR = 0.97 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
1
HomVEE = 0.00 Primary
BSID (Mental development index) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 24-month follow-up 163 children Adjusted mean = 88.54 Adjusted mean = 86.20 MD = 2.33 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
CBCL No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 24-month follow-up 163 children Adjusted mean = 48.79 Adjusted mean = 49.25 MD = -0.46 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary
Infant low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 6-month follow-up 158 children 0.22 0.32 OR = 0.63 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
1
HomVEE = -0.31 Primary
Infant low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 6-month follow-up 158 children 0.3 0.4 OR = 0.64 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
1
HomVEE = -0.27 Primary
Infant vulnerability: fear stimuli (video coding) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 6-month follow-up 158 children 0.17 0.21 OR = 0.77 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
1
HomVEE = -0.16 Primary
Irritable temperament No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 6-month follow-up 158 children Adjusted mean = 2.95 Adjusted mean = 2.92 MD = 0.02 HomVEE = > 0.05 Not available Secondary
PLS-3 (language delay) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 21-month follow-up 163 children 0.13 0.18 OR = 0.66 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
1
HomVEE = -0.23 Primary
PLS-3 (language delay) Favorable Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 21 months 406 children 6% (adjusted) 12% (adjusted) OR = 0.48 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
HomVEE = -0.45 Secondary
PLS-3 (language development) No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 21 months 406 children Adjusted mean = 101.22 Adjusted mean = 99.49 MD = 1.73 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Secondary
PLS-3 (language development) No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 21-month follow-up 163 children Adjusted mean = 97.83 Adjusted mean = 96.85 MD = 0.98 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Primary

1 Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
BSID: Mental development delay and MDI The MDI of the BSID assesses the cognitive functioning of young children. For mental development delay, children with MDI scores <77 were classified as delayed. For mental development, the MDI scores were analyzed as continuous. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
CBCL The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
Irritable temperament No description provided Videotaped observation Not reported by author Primary
Vulnerable: fear stimuli (video coding), Low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding), Low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding) Children’s emotional reactivity and looking at mother were videotaped and coded separately for their responses to stimuli designed to elicit fear, joy, and anger. The reactivity and looking-at-mother dimensions were dichotomized at the mean and cross-classified. Vulnerable infants exhibited high reactivity and low looking at mother in response to fear stimuli. Low vitality infants exhibited low reactivity and low looking at mother in response to joy and anger stimuli. High vitality infants exhibited high reactivity and frequent looking at mother in response to stimuli. Videotaped observation Not reported by author Primary

Olds, D. L., Robinson, J., Pettitt, L., Luckey, D. W., Holmberg, J., Ng, R. K., et al. (2004). Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by nurses: Age 4 follow-up results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 114(6), 1560-1568.
Results with nurse home visitors.
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
Behavioral adaptation in testing No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 408 children1 Adjusted mean = 99.63
SE = 0.72
Adjusted mean = 99.71
SE = 0.69
MD = -0.08 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.93
Study-reported = -0.01 Primary
Child attended Head Start, preschool, center-based day care, or government-supported family care Unfavorable Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 424 mothers1 0.54 0.66 OR = 0.62 Statistically significant,
p = 0.03
HomVEE = -0.29 Secondary
Emotional regulation in testing No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 408 children1 Adjusted mean = 99.54
SE = 0.72
Adjusted mean = 99.61
SE = 0.69
MD = -0.07 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.95
Study-reported = -0.01 Primary
Executive function composite No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 408 children1 Adjusted mean = 100.64
SE = 0.71
Adjusted mean = 99.69
SE = 0.68
MD = 0.95 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.34
Study-reported = 0.09 Primary
Externalizing behavior problems No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 408 children1 Adjusted mean = 12.16
SE = 0.51
Adjusted mean = 12.20
SE = 0.49
MD = -0.04 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.96
Study-reported = -0.01 Secondary
PLS-3 (total language score) No Effect Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 408 children1 Adjusted mean = 92.65
SE = 1.03
Adjusted mean = 92.01
SE = 1.00
MD = 0.64 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.65
Study-reported = 0.04 Primary

1 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Behavioral adaptation in testing Assessments of children’s ability to regulate their behavior and emotions were analyzed using principal components analysis to produce two scales: (1) behavioral adaptation (attention, activity level, organization of behavior/impulse control, and sociability); and (2) emotional regulation (anxiety, energy and feelings, regulation of mood, and sensory reactivity). In-home observational assessment Cronbach’s α = 0.96 Primary
Child attended Head Start, preschool, center-based day care, or government-supported family care Percentage of children who attended Head Start, preschool, center-based day care, or government-supported family care Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Emotional regulation in testing Assessments of children’s ability to regulate their behavior and emotions were analyzed using principal components analysis to produce two scales: (1) behavioral adaptation (attention, activity level, organization of behavior/impulse control, and sociability); and (2) emotional regulation (anxiety, energy and feelings, regulation of mood, and sensory reactivity). In-home observational assessment Cronbach’s α = 0.92 Primary
Executive function composite Assessments of a series of cognitive tasks focusing primarily on the children’s capacity for sustained attention and inhibitory control were coded and analyzed using principal components analysis to produce a single composite index labeled executive functions. In-home observational assessment Cronbach’s α = 0.60 Primary
Externalizing behavior problems Instances of rule-breaking and aggressive behavior Parent/caregiver report Not reported by author Secondary
PLS-3 The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. Child assessment Not reported by author Primary
Results for mothers with low psychological resources subgroup.
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
Behavioral adaptation in testing Favorable Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 144 children1 Adjusted mean = 100.41
SE = 1.21
Adjusted mean = 96.66
SE = 1.31
MD = 3.75 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
Study-reported = 0.38 Primary
Emotional regulation in testing No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 144 children1 Adjusted mean = 99.54
SE = 1.13
Adjusted mean = 98.42
SE = 1.23
MD = 1.12 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.51
Study-reported = 0.11 Primary
Executive function composite Favorable Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 144 children1 Adjusted mean = 100.16
SE = 1.09
Adjusted mean = 95.48
SE = 1.17
MD = 4.68 Statistically significant,
p = 0.00
Study-reported = 0.47 Primary
Externalizing behavior problems No Effect Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 144 children1 Adjusted mean = 13.16
SE = 0.93
Adjusted mean = 12.95
SE = 0.99
MD = 0.21 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.88
Study-reported = 0.03 Secondary
PLS-3 (Total language score) Favorable Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 4-year follow-up 144 children1 Adjusted mean = 91.39
SE = 1.56
Adjusted mean = 86.73
SE = 1.69
MD = 4.66 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
Study-reported = 0.31 Primary

1 Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.