Skip Navigation

SafeCare®

Yes (SafeCare Augmented only)

Last Updated: August 2013

In Brief for Positive Parenting Practices Outcomes

Impact Studies Rated High


Carta, J. J., Lefever, J. B., Bigelow, K., Borkowski, J., & Warren, S. F. (n.d.). Randomized trial of a cellular-phone enhanced home visitation parenting intervention. Unpublished manuscript.
Results for Project 12-Ways/Safecare.
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
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) Favorable Planned Activities Training (PAT) vs. Control Posttest 258 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.97 Adjusted mean = 3.48 MD = 0.40 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 Study-reported = 0.62 Secondary
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) Favorable Planned Activities Training (PAT) vs. Control 6 months 258 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.82 Adjusted mean = 3.54 MD = 0.22 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05 Study-reported = 0.34 Secondary
Positive Behavior Support(Planned Activities Training (PAT) Checklist) Favorable Planned Activities Training (PAT) vs. Control Posttest 258 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.51 Adjusted mean = 0.37 MD = 0.13 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 Study-reported = 0.81 Secondary
Positive Behavior Support(Planned Activities Training (PAT) Checklist) Favorable Planned Activities Training (PAT) vs. Control 6 months 258 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.45 Adjusted mean = 0.38 MD = 0.07 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05 Study-reported = 0.44 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) Mean score on KIPS; KIPS rated the quality of interactions between mothers and the target children. Parenting behaviors were rated on a 5-point scale along 12 dimensions. Observational assessment Interrater reliability coefficients ranged from 0.90 to 0.96 and the items have a high internal consistency reliability (a = 0.89). Secondary
Positive Behavior Support(Planned Activities Training (PAT) Checklist) Mean percentage of parenting strategies properly employed, as measured by the PAT Checklist Observational assessment Not reported by authors Secondary
Results for Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training.
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
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) No Effect Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training (CPAT) vs. Planned Activities Training (PAT) Posttest 255 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.99 Adjusted mean = 3.97 MD = 0.10 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 HomVEE = 0.03 Secondary
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) No Effect Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training (CPAT) vs. Planned Activities Training (PAT) 6 months 255 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.83 Adjusted mean = 3.82 MD = 0.08 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 HomVEE = 0.01 Secondary
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) Favorable Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training (CPAT) vs. Control Posttest 229 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.99 Adjusted mean = 3.48 MD = 0.51 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 Study-reported = 0.78 Secondary
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) Favorable Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training (CPAT) vs. Control 6 months 229 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.83 Adjusted mean = 3.54 MD = 0.30 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 Study-reported = 0.46 Secondary
Positive Behavior Support(Planned Activities Training (PAT) Checklist) Favorable Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training (CPAT) vs. Planned Activities Training (PAT) Posttest 255 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.55 Adjusted mean = 0.51 MD = 0.06 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05 Study-reported = 0.38 Secondary
Positive Behavior Support(Planned Activities Training (PAT) Checklist) No Effect Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training (CPAT) vs. Planned Activities Training (PAT) 6 months 255 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.47 Adjusted mean = 0.45 MD = 0.02 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 HomVEE = 0.10 Secondary
Positive Behavior Support(Planned Activities Training (PAT) Checklist) Favorable Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training (CPAT) vs. Control Posttest 229 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.55 Adjusted mean = 0.37 MD = 0.18 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 Study-reported = 1.13 Secondary
Positive Behavior Support(Planned Activities Training (PAT) Checklist) Favorable Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training (CPAT) vs. Control 6 months 229 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.47 Adjusted mean = 0.38 MD = 0.09 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 Study-reported = 0.56 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) Mean score on KIPS; KIPS rated the quality of interactions between mothers and the target children. Parenting behaviors were rated on a 5-point scale along 12 dimensions. Observational assessment Interrater reliability coefficients ranged from 0.90 to 0.96 and the items have a high internal consistency reliability (a = 0.89). Secondary
Positive Behavior Support(Planned Activities Training (PAT) Checklist) Mean percentage of parenting strategies properly employed, as measured by the PAT Checklist Observational assessment Not reported by authors Secondary
Top

Impact Studies Rated Moderate


Barone, V. J., Greene, B. F., & Lutzker, J. R. (1986). Home safety with families being treated for child abuse and neglect. Behavior Modification, 10(1), 93.
Results for Project 12-Ways/Safecare plus a Home Safety Enhancement.
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
Total Number of Hazardous Items Favorable Project 12-Ways 2-3 weeks 3 families Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Total Number of Hazardous Items The Home Accident Prevention Inventory, a home assessment protocol to record the accessibility of hazardous items in the home, was used to record the number of hazardous items accessible to the target children. Five categories of hazards were included: (1) poisoning by solids and liquids, (2) suffocation by mechanical objects, (3) fire and electrical, (4) suffocation by ingested objects, and (5) firearms. Observation Rates of inter-observer agreement across hazard categories ranged from 77 to 100 percent. Primary

Llewellyn, G., McConnell, D., Honey, A., Mayes, R., & Russo, D. (2003). Promoting health and home safety for children of parents with intellectual disability: A randomized controlled trial. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24(6), 405-431.
Results for Australian Adaptation of UCLA Parent-Child Health and Wellness Project.
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
Going to the doctor1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 3 Assessment 2 30 families Mean = 2.85 (SD = 1.18) Mean = 2.2 (SD = 0.79) MD = 0.65 Not available HomVEE = 0.59 Secondary
Going to the doctor1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 2 Assessment 2 31 families Mean = 2.85 (SD = 1.18) Mean = 2.0 (SD = 0.77) MD = 0.85 Not available HomVEE = 0.78 Secondary
Going to the doctor1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 4 Assessment 2 24 families Mean = 2.85 (SD = 1.18) Mean = 1.75 (SD = 0.96) MD = 1.10 Not available HomVEE = 0.92 Secondary
Health comprehension1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 2 Assessment 2 31 families Mean = 5.1 (SD = 1.12) Mean = 4.91 (SD = 1.3) MD = 0.19 Not available HomVEE = 0.16 Secondary
Health comprehension1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 3 Assessment 2 30 families Mean = 5.1 (SD = 1.12) Mean = 5.8 (SD = 0.42) MD = -0.70 Not available HomVEE = -0.71 Secondary
Health comprehension1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 4 Assessment 2 24 families Mean = 5.1 (SD = 1.12) Mean = 5.5 (SD = 0.58) MD = -0.40 Not available HomVEE = -0.36 Secondary
Home Illustrations—Dangers1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 2 Assessment 2 31 families Mean = 76.25 (SD = 10.64) Mean = 54.82 (SD = 15.78) MD = 21.43 Not available HomVEE = 1.65 Secondary
Home Illustrations—Dangers1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 3 Assessment 2 30 families Mean = 76.25 (SD = 10.64) Mean = 55.70 (SD = 8.06) MD = 20.55 Not available HomVEE = 2.02 Secondary
Home Illustrations—Dangers1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 4 Assessment 2 24 families Mean = 76.25 (SD = 10.64) Mean = 57.33 (SD = 19.22) MD = 18.92 Not available HomVEE = 1.50 Secondary
Home Illustrations—Precautions1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 4 Assessment 2 24 families Mean = 78.85 (SD = 17.24) Mean = 45.33 (SD = 13.87) MD = 33.52 Not available HomVEE = 1.92 Secondary
Home Illustrations—Precautions1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 3 Assessment 2 30 families Mean = 78.85 (SD = 17.24) Mean = 47.10 (SD = 13.76) MD = 31.75 Not available HomVEE = 1.91 Secondary
Home Illustrations—Precautions1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 2 Assessment 2 31 families Mean = 78.85 (SD = 17.24) Mean = 48.91 (SD = 15.36) MD = 29.94 Not available HomVEE = 1.75 Secondary
Home Precautions1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 2 Assessment 2 31 families Mean = 60.35 (SD = 21.94) Mean = 48.73 (SD = 10.77) MD = 11.62 Not available HomVEE = 0.60 Secondary
Home Precautions1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 3 Assessment 2 30 families Mean = 60.35 (SD = 21.94) Mean = 53.3 (SD = 12.88) MD = 7.05 Not available HomVEE = 0.35 Secondary
Home Precautions1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 4 Assessment 2 24 families Mean = 60.35 (SD = 21.94) Mean = 45.67 (SD = 14.05) MD = 14.68 Not available HomVEE = 0.67 Secondary
Illness and symptom recognition1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 2 Assessment 2 31 families Mean = 12.95 (SD = 3.66) Mean = 9.36 (SD = 2.11) MD = 3.59 Not available HomVEE = 1.09 Secondary
Illness and symptom recognition1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 3 Assessment 2 30 families Mean = 12.95 (SD = 3.66) Mean = 10.8 (SD = 2.7) MD = 2.15 Not available HomVEE = 0.62 Secondary
Illness and symptom recognition1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 4 Assessment 2 24 families Mean = 12.95 (SD = 3.66) Mean = 10.5 (SD = 1.29) MD = 2.45 Not available HomVEE = 0.69 Secondary
Life threatening emergencies1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 3 Assessment 2 30 families Mean = 4.95 (SD = 1.9) Mean = 3.0 (SD = 2.0) MD = 1.95 Not available HomVEE = 0.98 Secondary
Life threatening emergencies1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 2 Assessment 2 31 families Mean = 4.95 (SD = 1.9) Mean = 1.91 (SD = 1.04) MD = 3.04 Not available HomVEE = 1.79 Secondary
Life threatening emergencies1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 4 Assessment 2 24 families Mean = 4.95 (SD = 1.9) Mean = 3.25 (SD = 1.71) MD = 1.70 Not available HomVEE = 0.88 Secondary
Using medicine safely1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 4 Assessment 2 24 families Mean = 2.15 (SD = 0.88) Mean = 1.75 (SD = 0.5) MD = 0.40 Not available HomVEE = 0.46 Secondary
Using medicine safely1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 2 Assessment 2 31 families Mean = 2.15 (SD = 0.88) Mean = 1.27 (SD = 0.9) MD = 0.88 Not available HomVEE = 0.97 Secondary
Using medicine safely1 No Effect Group 1 vs. Group 3 Assessment 2 30 families Mean = 2.15 (SD = 0.88) Mean = 1.0 (SD = 0.82) MD = 1.15 Not available HomVEE = 1.30 Secondary

1 Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Going to the doctor Measures parent knowledge about when to go to the doctor, what to tell and ask the doctor. Scores ranging from 0 to 9 and represent the sum of 3 sub-scale scores related to calling the doctor, asking questions and following directions. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20 percent of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80 percent or more of answers were correct. Parent/caregiver report Cronbach’s α = 0.52 Secondary
Health comprehension Measures parent knowledge of health related words and body parts. Scores range from 0 through to 6 and represent the sum of two-sub-scale scores: health related vocabulary and knowledge of body parts. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20 percent of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80 percent or more of answers were correct. Parent/caregiver report Cronbach’s α = 0.54 Secondary
Home Illustrations—Dangers Count of the total number of dangers identified in pictures of six areas of the home (kitchen, bathroom, living room, stairs, bedroom and yard). Scores ranged from 0 to 104. Parent/caregiver report Cronbach’s α = 0.89 Primary
Home Illustrations—Precautions Count of the total number of precautions identified for dangers identified in pictures of six areas of the home (kitchen, bathroom, living room, stairs, bedroom and yard) Parent/caregiver report Cronbach’s α = 0.87 Secondary
Home Precautions Scores represent the total number of precautions actually taken to deal with 114 possible dangers in and around the home related to the following: fire, electrical, cooking, poisons, inappropriate edibles, suffocation, heavy and sharp objects, firearms, clutter, dangerous toys, animals, outside and general dangers. Home assessment Cronbach’s α = 0.98 Secondary
Illness and symptom recognition Measures parent knowledge about symptoms of illness, common child health problems, and practical tasks such as taking a child’s temperature. Scores range from 0 to 21 and represent the sum of 7 sub-scale scores related to recognizing symptoms of illness. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20 percent of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80 percent or more of answers were correct. Parent/caregiver report Cronbach’s α = 0.66 Secondary
Life threatening emergencies Measures parent knowledge about life threatening emergencies, including causes, prevention, and appropriate response. Scores range from 0 to 12 and represent the sum of 4 sub-scale scores related to parent knowledge of and skills in responding to life threatening emergencies. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20% of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80% or more of answers were correct. Parent/caregiver report Cronbach’s α = 0.69 Secondary
Using medicine safely Measures parent knowledge about prescription medication, how to use medicine safely, reading important information on medication labels, and following directions exactly. Scores range from 0 to 6 and represent the sum of two sub-scale scores related to asking questions about and using medicine safely. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20% of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80% or more of answers were correct. Parent/caregiver report Cronbach’s α = 0.45 Secondary
Top