Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Last updated: October 2019

Effects Shown in Research & Outcome Measure Details

Child Development and School Readiness

Outcomes Rated High

Enoch, M. A., Kitzman, H., Smith, J. A., Anson, E., Hodgkinson, C. A., Goldman, D., & Olds, D. L. (2016). A prospective cohort study of influences on externalizing behaviors across childhood: Results from a nurse home visiting randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 55(5), 376–382.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type	Notes
Composite externalizing disorders (ED) continuous total scores: Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (12-year follow-up)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12 years	Nurse home-visited vs. comparison, Memphis sample	559 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Not statistically significant, p >0.05	Primary	Statistical significance is based on information the authors provided in the text.
Composite externalizing disorders (ED) continuous total scores: Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (2-year follow-up)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	2 years	Nurse home-visited vs. comparison, Memphis sample	587 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Statistically significant, p = 0.03	Primary	Statistical significance and favorability are based on information the authors provided in the text.
Composite externalizing disorders (ED) continuous total scores: Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (6-year follow-up)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6 years	Nurse home-visited vs. comparison, Memphis sample	575 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Not statistically significant, p >0.05	Primary	Statistical significance is based on information the authors provided in the text.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

Table Help

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection method	Properties	Outcome Type
Composite externalizing disorders (ED) continuous total scores: Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (12-year follow-up)	The Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist Externalizing Disorders Composite is a standardized tool completed by parents, and is designed to assess the presence of behavioral or emotional problems in children.	Maternal report	The study authors note that the CBCL is standardized and normed.	Primary
Composite externalizing disorders (ED) continuous total scores: Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (2-year follow-up)	The Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist Externalizing Disorders Composite is a standardized tool completed by parents, and is designed to assess the presence of behavioral or emotional problems in children.	Maternal report	The study authors note that the CBCL is standardized and normed.	Primary
Composite externalizing disorders (ED) continuous total scores: Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (6-year follow-up)	The Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist Externalizing Disorders Composite is a standardized tool completed by parents, and is designed to assess the presence of behavioral or emotional problems in children.	Maternal report	The study authors note that the CBCL is standardized and normed.	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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type
Number of internalizing problems	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	227 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 11.19	Adjusted mean = 10.58	Mean difference = 0.61	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.46	Secondary
Number of internalizing problems	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	15-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	245 adolescents	Adjusted mean = 11.66	Adjusted mean = 10.58	Mean difference = 1.08	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.19	Secondary

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

Table Help

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection method	Properties	Outcome Type	Operations links
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., 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

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type	Notes
CBCL (externalizing problems)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	% (adjusted) = 17.40	Adjusted mean % = 20.20	OR = 0.83	HomeVEE calculated = -0.11	Not statistically significant, p = 0.43	Secondary
CBCL (internalizing problems)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	% (adjusted) = 12.60	Adjusted mean % = 14.70	OR = 0.84	HomeVEE calculated = -0.11	Not statistically significant, p = 0.50	Primary
CBCL (total problems)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	% (adjusted) = 2.00	Adjusted mean % = 5.00	OR = 0.32	HomeVEE calculated = -0.37	Statistically significant, p = 0.04	Primary	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
HTC Rating Scale (classroom social skills)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	Adjusted mean = 24.93	Adjusted mean = 24.53	Mean difference = 0.40	Study reported = 0.03	Not statistically significant, p = 0.71	Primary
HTC Rating Scale(academic engagement)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	Adjusted mean = 6.16	Adjusted mean = 6.86	Mean difference = -0.70	Study reported = -0.03	Not statistically significant, p = 0.72	Primary
KABC arithmetic achievement	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	Adjusted mean = 89.75	Adjusted mean = 88.61	Mean difference = 1.14	Study reported = 0.09	Not statistically significant, p = 0.30	Primary
KABC mental processing composite (arithmetic and reading)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	Adjusted mean = 92.34	Adjusted mean = 90.24	Mean difference = 2.10	Study reported = 0.18	Statistically significant, p = 0.03	Primary
KABC reading achievement	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	Adjusted mean = 93.79	Adjusted mean = 93.56	Mean difference = 0.23	Study reported = 0.02	Not statistically significant, p = 0.84	Primary
MSSB (dysregulated aggression index)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	Adjusted mean = 99.24	Adjusted mean = 100.26	Mean difference = -1.02	Study reported = -0.10	Not statistically significant, p = 0.26	Primary
MSSB (percentage incoherent stories)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	Adjusted mean = 21.15	Adjusted mean = 25.22	Mean difference = -4.07	Study reported = -0.16	Not statistically significant, p = 0.07	Primary
MSSB (warmth/empathy index)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	Adjusted mean = 100.86	Adjusted mean = 99.51	Mean difference = 1.35	Study reported = 0.14	Not statistically significant, p = 0.13	Primary
PPVT-III receptive vocabulary	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	615 children	Adjusted mean = 84.32	Adjusted mean = 82.13	Mean difference = 2.19	Study reported = 0.17	Statistically significant, p = 0.04	Primary
Child attended Head Start, preschool, day care, or early intervention, age 24–54 months	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	641 mothers	% (adjusted) = 82.00	Adjusted mean % = 75.00	OR = 1.53	HomeVEE calculated = 0.26	Statistically significant, p = 0.05	Secondary	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

Table Help

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection method	Properties	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
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
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
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
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: 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: 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
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
PPVT-III	The PPVT-III assesses receptive vocabulary for Standard American English in young children.	Child assessment	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
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

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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type	Notes
GPA (reading and math, grades 1–3)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	604 children	Adjusted mean = 2.69	Adjusted mean = 2.59	Mean difference = 0.10	Study reported = 0.09	Not statistically significant, p = 0.20	Primary	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Achievement tests (reading and math, grades 1–3)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	570 children	Adjusted mean = 44.61	Adjusted mean = 41.63	Mean difference = 2.98	Study reported = 0.11	Not statistically significant, p = 0.17	Primary	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Any academic failures (grades 1–3)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	604 children	= 0.07	= 0.05	Mean difference = 2.00	HomeVEE calculated = 0.20	Not statistically significant, p = 0.37	Primary	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Conduct grades (grades 1–3 )	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	604 children	Adjusted mean = 2.71	Adjusted mean = 2.68	Mean difference = 0.03	Study reported = 0.03	Not statistically significant, p = 0.67	Primary	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Count of conduct failures, (grades 1–3)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	604 children	Adjusted mean = 0.06	Adjusted mean = 0.10	Mean difference = -0.04	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.09	Primary	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Count of depressive and anxiety disorders	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	604 children	Adjusted mean = 0.12	Adjusted mean = 0.19	Mean difference = -0.07	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.12	Secondary	footnote4 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculation of incidence ratio.
Count of disruptive behavior disorders (with impairment)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	604 children	Adjusted mean = 0.36	Adjusted mean = 0.31	Mean difference = -0.05	Not available	Not statistically significant, p = 0.42	Secondary	footnote4 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculation of incidence ratio.
Ever placed in special education (grades 1–3)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	604 children	= 0.02	= 0.02	Mean difference = 0.00	HomeVEE calculated = -0.03	Not statistically significant, p = 0.97	Primary	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Ever retained (grades 1–3)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	604 children	= 0.16	= 0.12	Mean difference = 4.00	HomeVEE calculated = 0.18	Not statistically significant, p = 0.25	Primary	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Teacher reported peer affiliation (grade 3)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	558 children	Adjusted mean = 100.35	Adjusted mean = 99.92	Mean difference = 0.43	Study reported = 0.04	Not statistically significant, p = 0.64	Secondary	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Teacher-reported academically focused behavior (grade 3)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	558 children	Adjusted mean = 100.10	Adjusted mean = 100.08	Mean difference = 0.02	Study reported = 0.00	Not statistically significant, p = 0.98	Secondary	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Teacher-reported antisocial behavior (grade 3)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	558 children	Adjusted mean = 99.77	Adjusted mean = 100.08	Mean difference = -0.31	Study reported = -0.03	Not statistically significant, p = 0.74	Secondary	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

Table Help

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection method	Properties	Outcome Type
GPA	Grades received in math and reading 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
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
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
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
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 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 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
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 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
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
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 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
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

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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type
PLS-3 (language delay)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	21 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	406 children	% (adjusted) = 6.00	Adjusted mean % = 12.00	OR = 0.48	HomeVEE calculated = -0.45	Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05	Primary
PLS-3 (language development)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	21 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	406 children	Adjusted mean = 101.22	Adjusted mean = 99.49	Mean difference = 1.73	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

Table Help

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection method	Properties	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 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
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
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
CBCL	The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children.	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
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
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)	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)	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
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
Irritable temperament	No description provided by author.	Videotaped observation	Not reported by author	Primary
Irritable temperament	No description provided	Videotaped observation	Not reported by author	Primary
Irritable temperament	No description provided by author	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
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
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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type	Notes
PLS-3 (total language score)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	408 children	Adjusted mean = 92.65	Adjusted mean = 92.01	Mean difference = 0.64	Study reported = 0.04	Not statistically significant, p = 0.65	Primary	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 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.
Behavioral adaptation in testing	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	408 children	Adjusted mean = 99.63	Adjusted mean = 99.71	Mean difference = -0.08	Study reported = -0.01	Not statistically significant, p = 0.93	Primary	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 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.
Child attended Head Start, preschool, center-based day care, or government-supported family care	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	424 mothers	= 0.54	= 0.66	OR = 0.62	HomeVEE calculated = -0.29	Statistically significant, p = 0.03	Secondary	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 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.
Emotional regulation in testing	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	408 children	Adjusted mean = 99.54	Adjusted mean = 99.61	Mean difference = -0.07	Study reported = -0.01	Not statistically significant, p = 0.95	Primary	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 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.
Executive function composite	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	408 children	Adjusted mean = 100.64	Adjusted mean = 99.69	Mean difference = 0.95	Study reported = 0.09	Not statistically significant, p = 0.34	Primary	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 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.
Externalizing behavior problems	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	408 children	Adjusted mean = 12.16	Adjusted mean = 12.20	Mean difference = -0.04	Study reported = -0.01	Not statistically significant, p = 0.96	Secondary	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 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

Table Help

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection method	Properties	Outcome Type
PLS-3	The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author	Primary
PLS-3	The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author	Primary
PLS-3 (total language score)	The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author	Primary
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
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
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
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
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
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
Emotional regulation in testing	In-home observational assessment during testing	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
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
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
Externalizing behavior problems	Instances of rule-breaking and aggressive behavior	Parent/caregiver report	Not reported by author	Secondary
Externalizing behavior problems	Instances of rule-breaking and aggressive behavior	Parent/caregiver report	Not reported by author	Secondary

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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type
Graduated from high school	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	19-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira)	231 children	%(adjusted) = 70.60	Adjusted mean % = 74.50	Difference = -3.90	HomeVEE calculated = -0.12	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Secondary
Graduated from high school	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	19-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	219 children	%(adjusted) = 81.60	Adjusted mean % = 74.50	Difference = 7.10	HomeVEE calculated = 0.25	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Secondary

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

Table Help

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection method	Properties	Outcome Type	Operations links
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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type
Math Grades: Parent Report	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	374 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 3.14	Unadjusted mean = 3.21	Mean difference = -0.07	Study reported = -0.11	p-value = 0.32	Secondary
Reading Grades: Parent Report	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	375 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 3.14	Unadjusted mean = 3.18	Mean difference = -0.04	Study reported = -0.05	p-value = 0.62	Secondary

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

Table Help

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection method	Properties	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	Mean third-grade math grade point average	Parent/caregiver report	Not applicable	Secondary
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	Mean third-grade reading grade point average	Parent/caregiver report	Not applicable	Secondary
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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type	Notes
GPA (reading and math) (grades 1–6)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	635 children	Mean = 2.48	Mean = 2.39	Mean difference = 0.09	HomeVEE calculated = 2.07	Not statistically significant, p > .05	Primary	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
GPA (reading and math) (grades 4–6)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	635 children	Mean = 2.28	Mean = 2.20	Mean difference = 0.08	HomeVEE calculated = 1.70	Not statistically significant, p > .05	Primary	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
PIAT scores (reading and math) at 12 years	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	568 children	Mean = 89.24	Mean = 87.96	Mean difference = 1.27	HomeVEE calculated = 2.25	Not statistically significant, p > .05	Primary	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
Conduct grades (grades 1–-6)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	635 children	Mean = 2.95	Mean = 2.89	Mean difference = 0.06	HomeVEE calculated = 1.79	Not statistically significant, p > .05	Primary
Conduct grades (grades 4–6)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	635 children	Mean = 2.95	Mean = 2.88	Mean difference = 0.07	HomeVEE calculated = 1.87	Not statistically significant, p > .05	Primary	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
Ever placed in special education (grades 1–6)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	635 children	% (adjusted) = 14.80	Adjusted mean % = 9.80	OR = 1.61	HomeVEE calculated = 0.28	Not statistically significant, p > .05	Primary
Ever retained	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	635 children	% (adjusted) = 24.90	Adjusted mean % = 20.80	OR = 1.26	HomeVEE calculated = 0.14	Not statistically significant, p > .05	Primary
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 1–6), percentile	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	578 children	Mean = 42.34	Mean = 39.79	Mean difference = 2.55	HomeVEE calculated = 2.12	Not statistically significant, p > .05	Primary	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 4–6), percentile	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	635 children	Mean = 39.37	Mean = 38.27	Mean difference = 1.09	HomeVEE calculated = 0.89	Not statistically significant, p > .05	Primary	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
Leiter-R Sustained Attention test scaled score	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis)	578 children	Mean = 8.68	Mean = 8.75	Mean difference = -0.07	HomeVEE calculated = -0.42	Not statistically significant, p > .05	Primary

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

Table Help

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection method	Properties	Outcome Type
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 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
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
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
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
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 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
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 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
Ever retained	Percentage of children that had ever been grade retained during grades 1 to 6	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 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), 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
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
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

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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type
CBCL (total score)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	2 years postnatal	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	1082 children	Adjusted mean = 46.00	Adjusted mean = 49.20	Mean difference = -3.20	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
BSID (total score)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	2 years postnatal	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	1082 children	Adjusted mean = 94.50	Adjusted mean = 94.30	Mean difference = 0.20	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
NCAST Child Responsiveness (total score)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	2 years postnatal	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	1082 children	Adjusted mean = 17.70	Adjusted mean = 17.40	Mean difference = 0.30	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

Table Help

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection method	Properties	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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type
BSID MDI	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison	204 children	Adjusted mean = 111.23	Adjusted mean = 109.94	Mean difference = 1.29	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
BSID Mental Development Index (MDI)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison	199 children	Adjusted mean = 105.44	Adjusted mean = 109.94	Mean difference = -4.50	Not available	Statistical significance not reported	Primary
Cattell	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	24 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison	186 children	Adjusted mean = 105.73	Adjusted mean = 106.49	Mean difference = -0.76	Not available	Statistical significance not reported	Primary
Cattell	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	24 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison	193 children	Adjusted mean = 109.34	Adjusted mean = 106.49	Mean difference = 2.85	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

Table Help

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection method	Properties	Outcome Type	Operations links
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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type
Stanford Binet	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	36 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	226 children	Adjusted mean = 104.20	Adjusted mean = 101.95	Mean difference = 2.25	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
Stanford Binet	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	36 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	236 children	Adjusted mean = 103.57	Adjusted mean = 101.95	Mean difference = 1.62	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
Stanford Binet	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	48 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira)	226 children	Adjusted mean = 111.25	Adjusted mean = 108.93	Mean difference = 2.32	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
Stanford Binet	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	48 months	Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira)	236 children	Adjusted mean = 111.52	Adjusted mean = 108.93	Mean difference = 2.59	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

Table Help

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection method	Properties	Outcome Type	Operations links
Stanford Binet	The Stanford Binet Form L-M assesses intelligence in young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author	Primary

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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type	Notes
Attention dysfunction - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 3	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9 years	Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver)	378 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.02	Unadjusted mean = 0.05	Mean difference = -0.04	Study reported = 0.34	Not statistically significant, p = 0.07	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Externalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 3	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6 years	Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver)	396 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	Mean difference = -0.03	Study reported = 0.76	Not statistically significant, p = 0.42	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Internalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 3	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6 years	Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver)	396 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.01	Unadjusted mean = 0.03	Mean difference = -0.02	Study reported = 0.42	Not statistically significant, p = 0.28	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Total behavioral problems - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 3	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6 years	Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver)	396 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.04	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	Mean difference = -0.04	Study reported = 0.45	Not statistically significant, p = 0.08	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

Table Help

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection method	Properties	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
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. 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 - 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
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 - 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
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 - 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
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

NFP with Nurse Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type
CBCL (externalizing problems)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	% (adjusted) = 22.00	Adjusted mean % = 24.00	OR = 0.87	HomeVEE calculated = -0.09	Not statistically significant, p = 0.63	Primary
CBCL (internalizing problems)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	% (adjusted) = 20.00	Adjusted mean % = 17.00	OR = 1.30	HomeVEE calculated = 0.16	Not statistically significant, p = 0.40	Primary
CBCL (total problems, percentage)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	%, (adjusted) = 3.70	Adjusted mean % = 6.60	Difference = -2.90	Study reported = -0.37	Not statistically significant, p = 0.31	Primary
HTC Rating Scale(academic engagement)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	Adjusted mean = 4.74	Adjusted mean = 4.23	Mean difference = 0.51	Study reported = 0.02	Not statistically significant, p = 0.86	Primary
HTC Rating Scale(classroom social skills)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	Adjusted mean = 24.54	Adjusted mean = 22.92	Mean difference = 1.62	Study reported = 0.14	Not statistically significant, p = 0.27	Primary
KABC arithmetic achievement	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	Adjusted mean = 88.61	Adjusted mean = 85.42	Mean difference = 3.19	Study reported = 0.25	Statistically significant, p = 0.04	Primary
KABC mental processing composite (arithmetic and reading)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	Adjusted mean = 90.49	Adjusted mean = 87.64	Mean difference = 2.85	Study reported = 0.25	Statistically significant, p = 0.03	Primary
KABC reading achievement	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	Adjusted mean = 92.07	Adjusted mean = 90.87	Mean difference = 1.20	Study reported = 0.09	Not statistically significant, p = 0.44	Secondary
MSSB (dysregulated aggression index)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	Adjusted mean = 98.58	Adjusted mean = 101.10	Mean difference = -2.52	Study reported = -0.25	Statistically significant, p = 0.04	Primary
MSSB (percentage incoherent stories)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	Adjusted mean = 20.90	Adjusted mean = 29.84	Mean difference = -8.94	Study reported = -0.34	Statistically significant, p < 0.01	Primary
MSSB (warmth/ empathy index)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	Adjusted mean = 100.30	Adjusted mean = 98.98	Mean difference = 1.32	Study reported = 0.13	Not statistically significant, p = 0.27	Primary
PPVT-III receptive vocabulary	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	335 children	Adjusted mean = 81.75	Adjusted mean = 79.08	Mean difference = 2.67	Study reported = 0.21	Not statistically significant, p = 0.07	Primary

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

NFP with Nurse Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type
GPA (reading and math, grades 1 – 3)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	333 children	Adjusted mean = 2.68	Adjusted mean = 2.44	Mean difference = 0.24	Study reported = 0.22	Statistically significant, p = 0.02	Primary
Achievement tests (reading and math, grades 1 – 3)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	333 children	Adjusted mean = 44.89	Adjusted mean = 35.72	Mean difference = 9.17	Study reported = 0.33	Statistically significant, p < 0.01	Primary
Conduct grades (grades 1 – 3)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	333 children	Adjusted mean = 2.68	Adjusted mean = 2.65	Mean difference = 0.03	Study reported = 0.03	Not statistically significant, p = 0.75	Primary
Teacher-reported academically focused behavior (grade 3)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	333 children	Adjusted mean = 99.59	Adjusted mean = 98.70	Mean difference = 0.89	Study reported = 0.09	Not statistically significant, p = 0.47	Secondary
Teacher-reported antisocial behavior (grade 3)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	333 children	Adjusted mean = 100.18	Adjusted mean = 100.17	Mean difference = 0.01	Study reported = 0.00	Not statistically significant, p = 0.99	Secondary
Teacher-reported peer affiliation (grade 3)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9 year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis)	333 children	Adjusted mean = 99.56	Adjusted mean = 99.37	Mean difference = 0.19	Study reported = 0.02	Not statistically significant, p = 0.88	Secondary

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

NFP with Nurse Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type	Notes
CBCL	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	24-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	136 children	Adjusted mean = 48.13	Adjusted mean = 49.25	Mean difference = -1.12	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
BSID (mental development delay)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	24-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	136 children	= 0.10	= 0.19	OR = 0.48	HomeVEE calculated = -0.12	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary	footnote23 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.
BSID (mental development index)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	24-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	136 children	Adjusted mean = 90.18	Adjusted mean = 86.20	Mean difference = 3.98	Not available	Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05	Primary	footnote26 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 The confidence interval includes 0, but according to the study, the result is statistically significant (α = 0.05).
PLS-3 (language delay)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	21-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	142 children	= 0.07	= 0.18	OR = 0.32	HomeVEE calculated = -0.65	Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05	Primary
PLS-3 (language development)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	21-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	142 children	Adjusted mean = 101.52	Adjusted mean = 96.85	Mean difference = 4.67	Not available	Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05	Primary
Infant low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	138 children	= 0.13	= 0.32	OR = 0.33	HomeVEE calculated = -0.31	Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05	Primary
Infant low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	138 children	= 0.24	= 0.40	OR = 0.46	HomeVEE calculated = -0.45	Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05	Primary
Infant vulnerability: fear stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	138 children	= 0.12	= 0.21	OR = 0.51	HomeVEE calculated = -0.34	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary	footnote23 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.
Irritable temperament	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	138 children	Adjusted mean = 2.88	Adjusted mean = 2.92	Mean difference = -0.04	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Secondary

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

NFP with Nurse Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type	Notes
PLS-3 (Total language score)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	144 children	Adjusted mean = 91.39	Adjusted mean = 86.73	Mean difference = 4.66	Study reported = 0.31	Statistically significant, p = 0.04	Primary	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 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.
Behavioral adaptation in testing	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	144 children	Adjusted mean = 100.41	Adjusted mean = 96.66	Mean difference = 3.75	Study reported = 0.38	Statistically significant, p = 0.04	Primary	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 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.
Emotional regulation in testing	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	144 children	Adjusted mean = 99.54	Adjusted mean = 98.42	Mean difference = 1.12	Study reported = 0.11	Not statistically significant, p = 0.51	Primary	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 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.
Executive function composite	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	144 children	Adjusted mean = 100.16	Adjusted mean = 95.48	Mean difference = 4.68	Study reported = 0.47	Statistically significant, p = 0.00	Primary	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 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.
Externalizing behavior problems	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver)	144 children	Adjusted mean = 13.16	Adjusted mean = 12.95	Mean difference = 0.21	Study reported = 0.03	Not statistically significant, p = 0.88	Secondary	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 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

NFP with Nurse Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type	Notes
GPA (reading and math) (grades 1-6)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	Mean = 2.46	Mean = 2.27	Mean difference = 0.20	HomeVEE calculated = 3.32	Statistically significant, p < .05	Primary	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
GPA (reading and math) (grades 4-6)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	Mean = 2.27	Mean = 2.08	Mean difference = 0.19	HomeVEE calculated = 2.83	Statistically significant, p < .05	Primary	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
PIAT scores (reading and math) at 12 years	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	Mean = 88.78	Mean = 85.70	Mean difference = 3.07	HomeVEE calculated = 3.91	Statistically significant, p < .05	Primary	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
Conduct grades (grades 1-6)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	Mean = 2.93	Mean = 2.86	Mean difference = 0.07	HomeVEE calculated = 1.61	Not statistically significant, p&gy; .05	Secondary	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
Conduct grades (grades 4-6)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	Mean = 2.91	Mean = 2.86	Mean difference = 0.05	HomeVEE calculated = 0.93	Not statistically significant, p > .05	Primary	footnote121 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Outcome examined with repeated measures.
Ever placed in special education (grades 1-6)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	% = 15.00	% = 15.00	OR = 0.97	HomeVEE calculated = -0.02	Not statistically significant, p > .05	Primary	footnote122 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Percentages adjusted for covariates in the model (household poverty and maternal childrearing attitudes).
Ever retained	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	% = 23.00	% = 27.00	OR = 0.77	HomeVEE calculated = -0.16	Not statistically significant, p > .05	Primary	footnote122 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Percentages adjusted for covariates in the model (household poverty and maternal childrearing attitudes).
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 1-6), percentile1	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	Mean = 40.52	Mean = 34.85	Mean difference = 5.67	HomeVEE calculated = 3.39	Statistically significant, p < .05	Primary
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 4-6), percentile1	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	Mean = 36.86	Mean = 33.67	Mean difference = 3.19	HomeVEE calculated = 1.87	Not statistically significant, p > .05	Primary
Leiter-R Sustained Attention test scaled score	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	12-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis)	326 mothers	Mean = 8.63	Mean = 8.72	Mean difference = -0.09	HomeVEE calculated = -0.39	Not statistically significant, p > .05	Primary

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

NFP with Paraprofessional Home Visitors

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type
CBCL	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	24 months	Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver)	392 children	Adjusted mean = 45.49	Adjusted mean = 45.26	Mean difference = 0.23	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
BSID (mental development delay)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	24 months	Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver)	392 children	% (adjusted) = 14.00	Adjusted mean % = 13.00	OR = 1.07	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
BSID (Mental Developmental Index)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	24 months	Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver)	392 children	Adjusted mean = 89.45	Adjusted mean = 89.38	Mean difference = 0.07	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
PLS-3 (language delay)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	21 months	Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver)	420 children	% (adjusted) = 11.00	Adjusted mean % = 12.00	OR = 0.90	HomeVEE calculated = -0.06	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
PLS-3 (language development)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	21 months	Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver)	420 children	Adjusted mean = 99.89	Adjusted mean = 99.49	Mean difference = 0.40	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
Irritable temperament (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6 months	Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver)	377 children	Adjusted mean = 2.83	Adjusted mean = 2.84	Mean difference = -0.01	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
Low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6 months	Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver)	377 children	% (adjusted) = 26.00	Adjusted mean % = 28.00	OR = 0.89	HomeVEE calculated = -0.06	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
Low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6 months	Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver)	377 children	% (adjusted) = 31.00	Adjusted mean % = 34.00	OR = 0.88	HomeVEE calculated = -0.08	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
Vulnerable: fear stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6 months	Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver)	377 children	% (adjusted) = 18.00	Adjusted mean % = 25.00	OR = 0.67	HomeVEE calculated = -0.25	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

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.

NFP with Paraprofessional Home Visitors

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type	Notes
ASPD Total Score - borderline/clinical	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	328 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.04	Unadjusted mean = 0.04	OR = 1.78	HomeVEE calculated = 0.37	p-value = 0.37	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
CBCL Externalizing - Dual Rater Clinical	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	320 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.14	Unadjusted mean = 0.14	OR = 1.40	HomeVEE calculated = 0.20	p-value = 0.33	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
CBCL Internalizing - Dual Rater Clinical	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	317 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	OR = 0.95	HomeVEE calculated = -0.03	p-value = 0.9	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
CBCL Total - Dual Rater Clinical	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	317 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	OR = 0.97	HomeVEE calculated = -0.01	p-value = 0.94	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Current grade placement	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	321 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 4.45	Unadjusted mean = 4.45	Mean difference = 0.12	Study reported = 0.16	p-value = 0.13	Primary
Learning support services: hrs/week	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	309 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 1.22	Unadjusted mean = 1.22	Mean difference = -0.42	Study reported = -0.09	p-value = 0.4	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Math Grades: Parent Report	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	391 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 3.11	Unadjusted mean = 3.11	Mean difference = -0.10	Study reported = -0.15	p-value = 0.16	Secondary
Math Grades: School Report	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	305 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 2.51	Unadjusted mean = 2.51	Mean difference = -0.17	Study reported = -0.15	p-value = 0.15	Primary
Reading Grades: Parent Report	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	391 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 3.12	Unadjusted mean = 3.12	Mean difference = -0.06	Study reported = -0.07	p-value = 0.47	Secondary
Reading Grades: School Report	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	307 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 2.32	Unadjusted mean = 2.32	Mean difference = -0.17	Study reported = -0.16	p-value = 0.14	Primary
Special Education school report	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	308 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.16	Unadjusted mean = 0.16	OR = 1.01	HomeVEE calculated = 0.01	p-value = 0.98	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Times sent to Principal"s office	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control	326 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 1.44	Unadjusted mean = 1.44	Mean difference = 0.14	Study reported = 0.15	p-value = 0.18	Primary	footnote163 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Positive value is favorable to the comparison group.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

NFP with Paraprofessional Home Visitors

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type	Notes
Attention dysfunction - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9 years	Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver)	394 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.03	Unadjusted mean = 0.05	Mean difference = -0.03	Study reported = 0.53	Not statistically significant, p = 0.22	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Externalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 2	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6 years	Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver)	411 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.09	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	Mean difference = -0.01	Study reported = 0.87	Not statistically significant, p = 0.66	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Externalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9 years	Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver)	394 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.14	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	Mean difference = 0.04	Study reported = 1.34	Not statistically significant, p = 0.33	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Internalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 2	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6 years	Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver)	411 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.04	Unadjusted mean = 0.03	Mean difference = 0.01	Study reported = 1.35	Not statistically significant, p = 0.60	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Internalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9 years	Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver)	394 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	Mean difference = 0.00	Study reported = 0.96	Not statistically significant, p = 0.90	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Total behavioral problems - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 2	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6 years	Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver)	411 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	Mean difference = 0.00	Study reported = 1.04	Not statistically significant, p = 0.91	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Total behavioral problems - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9 years	Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver)	394 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.09	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	Mean difference = 0.00	Study reported = 0.97	Not statistically significant, p = 0.94	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

NFP with Paraprofessional Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type	Notes
CBCL	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	24-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	Adjusted mean = 48.79	Adjusted mean = 49.25	Mean difference = -0.46	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
BSID (Mental development delay)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	24-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	= 0.19	= 0.19	OR = 0.97	HomeVEE calculated = 0.00	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary	footnote23 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.
BSID (Mental development index)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	24-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	Adjusted mean = 88.54	Adjusted mean = 86.20	Mean difference = 2.33	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
PLS-3 (language delay)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	21 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	406 children	% (adjusted) = 6.00	Adjusted mean % = 12.00	OR = 0.48	HomeVEE calculated = -0.45	Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05	Secondary
PLS-3 (language delay)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	21-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	= 0.13	= 0.18	OR = 0.66	HomeVEE calculated = -0.23	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary	footnote23 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.
PLS-3 (language development)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	21 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	406 children	Adjusted mean = 101.22	Adjusted mean = 99.49	Mean difference = 1.73	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Secondary
PLS-3 (language development)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	21-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	Adjusted mean = 97.83	Adjusted mean = 96.85	Mean difference = 0.98	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
Infant low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	158 children	= 0.22	= 0.32	OR = 0.63	HomeVEE calculated = -0.31	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary	footnote23 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.
Infant low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	158 children	= 0.30	= 0.40	OR = 0.64	HomeVEE calculated = -0.27	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary	footnote23 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.
Infant vulnerability: fear stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	158 children	= 0.17	= 0.21	OR = 0.77	HomeVEE calculated = -0.16	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary	footnote23 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.
Irritable temperament	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6-month follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	158 children	Adjusted mean = 2.95	Adjusted mean = 2.92	Mean difference = 0.02	Not available	HomVEE = > 0.05	Secondary

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

NFP with Paraprofessional Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type	Notes
PLS-3 (Total language score)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	Adjusted mean = 90.09	Adjusted mean = 86.73	Mean difference = 3.36	Study reported = 0.23	Not statistically significant, p = 0.13	Primary	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 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.
Behavioral adaptation in testing	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	Adjusted mean = 99.51	Adjusted mean = 96.66	Mean difference = 2.85	Study reported = 0.28	Not statistically significant, p = 0.10	Primary	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 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.
Emotional regulation in testing	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	Adjusted mean = 99.29	Adjusted mean = 98.42	Mean difference = 0.87	Study reported = 0.09	Not statistically significant, p = 0.59	Primary	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 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.
Executive function composite	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	Adjusted mean = 98.40	Adjusted mean = 95.48	Mean difference = 2.92	Study reported = 0.29	Not statistically significant, p = 0.06	Primary	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 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.
Externalizing behavior problems	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	4-year follow-up	Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver)	163 children	Adjusted mean = 12.91	Adjusted mean = 12.95	Mean difference = -0.04	Study reported = 0.00	Not statistically significant, p = 0.98	Secondary	footnote5 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 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

Outcomes Rated Moderate

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type	Notes
CBCL (Behavior problems score)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	24 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	372 children	Adjusted mean = 43.71	Adjusted mean = 45.26	Mean difference = -1.56	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
BSID MDI	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	24 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	372 children	Adjusted mean = 90.13	Adjusted mean = 89.38	Mean difference = 0.75	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary
BSID, MDI: Mental development delay	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	24 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	372 children	%, (adjusted) = 11.00	Adjusted mean % = 13.00	OR = 0.83	HomeVEE calculated = -0.12	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Infant low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	363 children	%, (adjusted) = 19.00	Adjusted mean % = 28.00	OR = 0.62	HomeVEE calculated = -0.31	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Infant low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	363 children	%, (adjusted) = 26.00	Adjusted mean % = 34.00	OR = 0.68	HomeVEE calculated = -0.23	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Primary	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Infant vulnerability: fear stimuli (video coding)	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	363 children	% (adjusted) = 16.00	Adjusted mean % = 25.00	OR = 0.57	HomeVEE calculated = -0.34	Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05	Primary	footnote2 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.
Irritable temperament	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	6 months	Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver)	363 children	Adjusted mean = 2.80	Adjusted mean = 2.84	Mean difference = -0.04	Not available	Not statistically significant, p > 0.05	Secondary

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

Table Help

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection method	Properties	Outcome Type
CBCL	The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children.	Child assessment	Not reported by author	Primary
BSID: Mental development delay BSID: 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
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
Irritable temperament	No description provided	Videotaped observation	Not reported by author	Primary

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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type	Notes
ASPD Total Score - borderline/clinical	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	310 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.01	Unadjusted mean = 0.02	OR = 0.62	HomeVEE calculated = -0.26	p-value = 0.59	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
CBCL Externalizing - Dual Rater Clinical	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	303 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.07	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	OR = 0.62	HomeVEE calculated = -0.29	p-value = 0.26	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
CBCL Internalizing - Dual Rater Clinical	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	302 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.04	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	OR = 0.41	HomeVEE calculated = -0.53	p-value = 0.1	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
CBCL Total - Dual Rater Clinical	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	302 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.07	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	OR = 0.74	HomeVEE calculated = -0.18	p-value = 0.47	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Current grade placement	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	304 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 4.35	Unadjusted mean = 4.33	Mean difference = 0.02	Study reported = 0.06	p-value = 0.57	Secondary
Learning support services: hrs/week	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	294 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 1.53	Unadjusted mean = 1.64	Mean difference = -0.11	Study reported = -0.02	p-value = 0.83	Secondary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Math Grades: Parent Report	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	374 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 3.14	Unadjusted mean = 3.21	Mean difference = -0.07	Study reported = -0.11	p-value = 0.32	Secondary
Math Grades: School Report	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	295 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 2.54	Unadjusted mean = 2.68	Mean difference = -0.14	Study reported = -0.12	p-value = 0.24	Primary
Reading Grades: School Report	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	294 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 2.47	Unadjusted mean = 2.49	Mean difference = -0.02	Study reported = -0.03	p-value = 0.8	Primary
Special Education school report	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	294 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.12	Unadjusted mean = 0.16	OR = 0.76	HomeVEE calculated = -0.17	p-value = 0.42	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Times sent to Principal's office	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	308 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 1.32	Unadjusted mean = 1.30	Mean difference = 0.02	Study reported = 0.02	p-value = 0.85	Primary	footnote163 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Positive value is favorable to the comparison group.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

Table Help

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection method	Properties	Outcome Type
ASPD Total Score - borderline/clinical	No description provided	Teacher report	Not reported by author	Primary
CBCL Externalizing - Dual Rater Clinical	No description provided	Teacher report	Not reported by author	Primary
CBCL Internalizing - Dual Rater Clinical	No description provided	Teacher report	Not reported by author	Primary
CBCL Total - Dual Rater Clinical	No description provided	Teacher report	Not reported by author	Primary
Current grade placement	No description provided	Not reported by author	Not applicable	Secondary
Learning support services: hrs/week	No description provided	Not reported by author	Not applicable	Secondary
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	No description provided	Teacher report	Not applicable	Primary
Times sent to Principal's office	No description provided	Teacher report	Not applicable	Primary

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.

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type	Notes
ASPD Total Score - borderline/clinical	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	310 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.01	Unadjusted mean = 0.02	OR = 0.62	HomeVEE calculated = -0.26	p-value = 0.59	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
CBCL Externalizing - Dual Rater Clinical	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	303 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.07	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	OR = 0.62	HomeVEE calculated = -0.29	p-value = 0.26	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
CBCL Internalizing - Dual Rater Clinical	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	302 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.04	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	OR = 0.41	HomeVEE calculated = -0.53	p-value = 0.1	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
CBCL Total - Dual Rater Clinical	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	302 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.07	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	OR = 0.74	HomeVEE calculated = -0.18	p-value = 0.47	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Current grade placement	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	304 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 4.35	Unadjusted mean = 4.33	Mean difference = 0.02	Study reported = 0.06	p-value = 0.57	Secondary
Learning support services: hrs/week	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	294 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 1.53	Unadjusted mean = 1.64	Mean difference = -0.11	Study reported = -0.02	p-value = 0.83	Secondary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Math Grades: Parent Report	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	374 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 3.14	Unadjusted mean = 3.21	Mean difference = -0.07	Study reported = -0.11	p-value = 0.32	Secondary
Math Grades: School Report	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	295 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 2.54	Unadjusted mean = 2.68	Mean difference = -0.14	Study reported = -0.12	p-value = 0.24	Primary
Reading Grades: School Report	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	294 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 2.47	Unadjusted mean = 2.49	Mean difference = -0.02	Study reported = -0.03	p-value = 0.8	Primary
Special Education school report	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	294 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.12	Unadjusted mean = 0.16	OR = 0.76	HomeVEE calculated = -0.17	p-value = 0.42	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Times sent to Principal's office	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	Age 9 follow-up	Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control	308 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 1.32	Unadjusted mean = 1.30	Mean difference = 0.02	Study reported = 0.02	p-value = 0.85	Primary	footnote163 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Positive value is favorable to the comparison group.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

Table Help

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection method	Properties	Outcome Type
ASPD Total Score - borderline/clinical	No description provided	Teacher report	Not reported by author	Primary
CBCL Externalizing - Dual Rater Clinical	No description provided	Teacher report	Not reported by author	Primary
CBCL Internalizing - Dual Rater Clinical	No description provided	Teacher report	Not reported by author	Primary
CBCL Total - Dual Rater Clinical	No description provided	Teacher report	Not reported by author	Primary
Current grade placement	No description provided	Not reported by author	Not applicable	Secondary
Learning support services: hrs/week	No description provided	Not reported by author	Not applicable	Secondary
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	No description provided	Teacher report	Not applicable	Primary
Times sent to Principal's office	No description provided	Teacher report	Not applicable	Primary

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®

Show Study Effects Details

Table Help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Program Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Outcome Type	Notes
Externalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 3	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9 years	Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver)	378 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.07	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	Mean difference = -0.04	Study reported = 0.64	Not statistically significant, p = 0.25	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Internalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 3	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9 years	Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver)	378 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.04	Unadjusted mean = 0.08	Mean difference = -0.05	Study reported = 0.44	Not statistically significant, p = 0.08	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Total behavioral problems - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 3	FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect	9 years	Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver)	378 children	Unadjusted mean = 0.07	Unadjusted mean = 0.10	Mean difference = -0.02	Study reported = 0.76	Not statistically significant, p = 0.46	Primary	footnote162 Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

Table Help

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection method	Properties	Outcome Type
Any therapeutic services - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2	Parental report on whether child ever received therapeutic services for any of the following: speech and language, cognitive delays, attention deficit and hyperactivity, or emotional problems.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure	Primary
Any therapeutic services - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3	Parental report on whether child ever received therapeutic services for any of the following: speech and language, cognitive delays, attention deficit and hyperactivity, or emotional problems.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure	Primary
Any therapeutic services - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2	Parental report on whether child ever received therapeutic services for any of the following: speech and language, cognitive delays, attention deficit and hyperactivity, or emotional problems.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure	Primary
Any therapeutic services - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3	Parental report on whether child ever received therapeutic services for any of the following: speech and language, cognitive delays, attention deficit and hyperactivity, or emotional problems.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure	Primary
Arithmetic achievement standard score - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2	Average score on the Peabody Individual Achievement Test, which assesses reading, mathematics, and spelling ability in children.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure	Primary
Arithmetic achievement standard score - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3	Average score on the Peabody Individual Achievement Test, which assesses reading, mathematics, and spelling ability in children.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure	Primary
Arithmetic achievement standard score - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2	Average score on the Peabody Individual Achievement Test, which assesses reading, mathematics, and spelling ability in children.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure	Primary
Arithmetic achievement standard score - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3	Average score on the Peabody Individual Achievement Test, which assesses reading, mathematics, and spelling ability in children.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure	Primary
Arithmetic achievement standard score - averaged over 6 and 9 years, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2	Average score on the Peabody Individual Achievement Test, which assesses reading, mathematics, and spelling ability in children.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure	Primary
Arithmetic achievement standard score - averaged over 6 and 9 years, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3	Average score on the Peabody Individual Achievement Test, which assesses reading, mathematics, and spelling ability in children.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure	Primary
Behvioral regulation in testing - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2	Based on ratings from the child evaluators.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure	Primary
Behvioral regulation in testing - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3	Based on ratings from the child evaluators.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure	Primary
Dysregulated aggression - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2	Average dysregulated aggression index based on coded children's responses to the MacArthur Story Stem Battery.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure	Primary
Dysregulated aggression - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3	Average dysregulated aggression index based on coded children's responses to the MacArthur Story Stem Battery.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure	Primary
Externalizing - 9 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
Grade retention - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2	Parent report of whether child had been retained in school.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure	Primary
Grade retention - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3	Parent report of whether child had been retained in school.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure	Primary
Intellectual functioning - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2	Average score on the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Mental Processing Composite. The mental processing composite includes measures of sequential and simultaneous processing, designed to elicit problem-solving and information processing styles while minimizing the role of language and verbal skills.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure	Primary
Intellectual functioning - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3	Average score on the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Mental Processing Composite. The mental processing composite includes measures of sequential and simultaneous processing, designed to elicit problem-solving and information processing styles while minimizing the role of language and verbal skills.	Child assessment	Norm-referenced measure

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®

Effects Shown in Research & Outcome Measure Details

Child Development and School Readiness

Outcomes Rated High

Outcomes Rated Moderate

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)^®