Promoting First Relationships®—Home Visiting Options

Entries in this row combine information across all versions of Promoting First Relationships that are used with parents in the home.

Model effectiveness research report last updated: 2021

Effects shown in research & outcome measure details

Positive parenting practices

Findings rated high

Promoting First Relationships®—Home Visiting Intervention Model
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Dyadic synchronicity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

225 mother/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 6.45 Unadjusted mean = 5.98 Mean difference = 0.47 = 0.21

Not statistically significant, p = 0.12

Unadjusted mean.

Dyadic synchronicity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

252 mother/child dyads Adjusted mean = 6.45 Adjusted mean = 5.98 Difference = 0.43 Study reported = 0.19

Not statistically significant, p= 0.15

Adjusted to control for preferred language and baseline measure.

Dyadic synchronicity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

239 mother/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 5.43 Unadjusted mean = 5.31 Mean difference = 0.12 = 0.05

Not statistically significant, p = 0.68

Unadjusted mean.

Dyadic synchronicity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

252 mother/child dyads Adjusted mean = 5.43 Adjusted mean = 5.31 Difference = 0.01 Study reported = 0.00

Not statistically significant, p= 0.98

Adjusted to control for preferred language and baseline measure.

Maternal confidence

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

243 mothers Unadjusted mean = 4.40 Unadjusted mean = 4.36 Mean difference = 0.04 = 0.11

Not statistically significant, p = 0.38

Unadjusted mean.

Maternal confidence

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

252 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.40 Adjusted mean = 4.36 Difference = 0.02 Study reported = 0.05

Not statistically significant, p= 0.52

Adjusted to control for preferred language and baseline measure.

Maternal confidence

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

244 mothers Unadjusted mean = 4.44 Unadjusted mean = 4.36 Mean difference = 0.08 = 0.23

Not statistically significant, p = 0.07

Unadjusted mean.

Maternal confidence

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

252 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.44 Adjusted mean = 4.36 Difference = 0.05 Study reported = 0.12

Not statistically significant, p= 0.10

Adjusted to control for preferred language and baseline measure.

Parenting sensitivity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

225 mothers Unadjusted mean = 36.73 Unadjusted mean = 35.32 Mean difference = 1.41 = 0.32

Statistically significant, p = 0.02

Unadjusted mean.

Parenting sensitivity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

252 mothers Adjusted mean = 36.73 Adjusted mean = 35.32 Difference = 1.28 Study reported = 0.26

Statistically significant, p= 0.03

Adjusted to control for preferred language and baseline measure.

Parenting sensitivity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

238 mothers Unadjusted mean = 33.86 Unadjusted mean = 32.38 Mean difference = 1.48 = 0.30

Statistically significant, p = 0.02

Unadjusted mean.

Parenting sensitivity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

252 mothers Adjusted mean = 33.86 Adjusted mean = 32.38 Difference = 1.24 Study reported = 0.25

Statistically significant, p= 0.05

Adjusted to control for preferred language and baseline measure.

Understanding of toddlers

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

243 mothers Unadjusted mean = 51.84 Unadjusted mean = 48.67 Mean difference = 3.17 = 0.64

Statistically significant, p = 0.00

Unadjusted mean.

Understanding of toddlers

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

252 mothers Adjusted mean = 51.84 Adjusted mean = 48.67 Difference = 2.32 Study reported = 0.45

Statistically significant, p <0.001

Adjusted to control for preferred language and baseline measure.

Understanding of toddlers

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

244 mothers Unadjusted mean = 52.07 Unadjusted mean = 50.17 Mean difference = 1.90 = 0.38

Statistically significant, p = 0.00

Unadjusted mean.

Understanding of toddlers

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

252 mothers Adjusted mean = 52.07 Adjusted mean = 50.17 Difference = 1.06 Study reported = 0.21

Statistically significant, p= 0.03

Adjusted to control for preferred language and baseline measure.

Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties

Dyadic synchronicity

The Infant CARE-Index (ICI) assesses parent-infant interaction during play on one dyadic scale, three parent scales, and four child scales.

Videotaped parent-child interaction

Intraclass correlation = 0.69

Maternal confidence

The Maternal Confidence Questionnaire (MCQ) is a 14-item scale that measures mothers' perceptions of their ability to care for and understand their infants.

Caregiver questionnaire

Cronbach's α range from 0.66 to 0.76 across the three study time points

Parenting sensitivity

The Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS) is a binary scale that includes 73 items measuring maternal and child contributions to dyadic interactive quality. This subscale reflects the 50 items measuring maternal contributions.

Videotaped parent-child interaction

Cronbach's α = 0.72

Understanding of toddlers

The Raising a Baby Scale (RAB) is a 16-item questionnaire that measures caregiver knowledge of infants' and toddlers' social-emotional needs.

Caregiver questionnaire

Cronbach's α range from 0.68 to 0.71 across the three study time points

Promoting First Relationships®—Home Visiting Intervention Model
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Commitment: This Is My Baby (TIMB)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

169 caregivers Adjusted mean = 4.10 Adjusted mean = 4.21 Mean difference = -0.11 Study reported = -0.17

Not statistically significant, p= 0.35

Commitment: This Is My Baby (TIMB)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

169 caregivers Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Not statistically significant, p= >0.10

Finding estimated with hierarchical linear model (HLM).

Engagement: Indicator of Parent-Child Interaction (IPCI, 9 item subscale)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

173 children Adjusted mean = 2.08 Adjusted mean = 2.15 Mean difference = -0.07 Study reported = -0.15

Not statistically significant, p= 0.39

Engagement: Indicator of Parent-Child Interaction (IPCI, 9 item subscale)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

173 children Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Not statistically significant, p= >0.10

Finding estimated with hierarchical linear model (HLM).

Sensitivity: Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS, without 6 items on child distress)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

167 caregivers Adjusted mean = 13.26 Adjusted mean = 11.76 Mean difference = 1.50 Study reported = 0.41

Statistically significant, p= 0.02

Support: Indicator of Parent-Child Interaction (IPCI, 15 items)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

173 caregivers Adjusted mean = 2.18 Adjusted mean = 2.14 Mean difference = 0.04 Study reported = 0.11

Not statistically significant, p= 0.49

Support: Indicator of Parent-Child Interaction (IPCI, 15 items)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

173 caregivers Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Not statistically significant, p= >0.10

Finding estimated with hierarchical linear model (HLM).

Understanding of toddlers: Raising a Baby (RAB, 16 items)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

175 caregivers Adjusted mean = 52.16 Adjusted mean = 50.92 Mean difference = 1.24 Study reported = 0.36

Statistically significant, p= 0.04

Understanding of toddlers: Raising a Baby (RAB, 16 items)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

175 caregivers Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Statistically significant, p= <0.01

Finding estimated with hierarchical linear model (HLM).

Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties

Commitment: This Is My Baby (TIMB)

The TIMB consists of interview questions that assess the caregiver's commitment to supporting the child's growth and development.

Interview responses rated by two trained coders

Interrater agreement: r = 0.89

Engagement: Indicator of Parent-Child Interaction (IPCI, 9 item subscale)

The IPCI is an observational screening and monitoring tool for early intervention use in the home.

Observations scored by two trained coders

Interrater agreement: r = 0.81 at baseline, r = 0.79 at post-intervention, and r = 0.82 at 6-month follow-up

Sensitivity: Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS, without 6 items on child distress)

The NCATS is a videotaped interaction to assess caregiver sensitivity, stimulation of the child, and emotional responsiveness.

Videotaped interaction scored by a trained coder

Cronbach's α: 0.74 at baseline, 0.79 at post-intervention, 0.71 at 6-month follow-up

Support: Indicator of Parent-Child Interaction (IPCI, 15 items)

The IPCI is an observational screening and monitoring tool for early intervention use in the home.

Interaction rated by two trained coders and averaged across three activities: free play, reading, and a distraction task

Interrater agreement: r = 0.84 at baseline, 0.76 at post-intervention, and 0.80 at 6-month follow-up

Understanding of toddlers: Raising a Baby (RAB, 16 items)

The RAB is a measure of caregiver knowledge of infant and toddler social emotional needs and developmentally appropriate expectations.

Self-administered survey of caregivers

Cronbach's α: 0.71 at baseline, 0.73 at post-intervention, and 0.77 at 6-month follow-up

View Revisions