SafeCare®

Entries in this row combine information across all versions of SafeCare except for SafeCare Augmented. The main version of SafeCare has no high- or moderate-quality impact studies. Some other versions of SafeCare have at least one such study, but no version of the model other than SafeCare Augmented meets HHS criteria for an evidence-based home visiting model. Planned Activities Training (a SafeCare module) and Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training (a SafeCare module with an add-on) show evidence of effectiveness.

Last updated: July 2018

Effects Shown in Research & Outcome Measure Details

Positive Parenting Practices

Outcomes Rated High

SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control 229 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.83 Adjusted mean = 3.54 Mean difference = 0.30 Study reported = 0.46 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 Secondary
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Posttest Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control 229 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.99 Adjusted mean = 3.48 Mean difference = 0.51 Study reported = 0.78 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 Secondary
Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control 229 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.47 Adjusted mean = 0.38 Mean difference = 0.09 Study reported = 0.56 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 Secondary
Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Posttest Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control 229 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.55 Adjusted mean = 0.37 Mean difference = 0.18 Study reported = 1.13 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS)

Mean score on KIPS; KIPS rated the quality of interactions between mothers and the target children. Parenting behaviors were rated on a 5-point scale along 12 dimensions.

Observational assessment

Interrater reliability coefficients ranged from 0.90 to 0.96 and the items have a high internal consistency reliability (a = 0.89).

Secondary

Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist)

Mean percentage of parenting strategies properly employed, as measured by the Planned Activities Training Checklist

Observational assessment

Not reported by authors

Secondary
SafeCare: Planned Activities Training Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Planned Activities Training vs. Control 258 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.82 Adjusted mean = 3.54 Mean difference = 0.22 Study reported = 0.34 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05 Secondary
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Posttest Planned Activities Training vs. Control 258 mothers Adjusted mean = 3.97 Adjusted mean = 3.48 Mean difference = 0.40 Study reported = 0.62 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 Secondary
Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Planned Activities Training vs. Control 258 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.45 Adjusted mean = 0.38 Mean difference = 0.07 Study reported = 0.44 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05 Secondary
Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Posttest Planned Activities Training vs. Control 258 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.51 Adjusted mean = 0.37 Mean difference = 0.13 Study reported = 0.81 Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS)

Mean score on KIPS; KIPS rated the quality of interactions between mothers and the target children. Parenting behaviors were rated on a 5-point scale along 12 dimensions.

Observational assessment

Interrater reliability coefficients ranged from 0.90 to 0.96 and the items have a high internal consistency reliability (a = 0.89).

Secondary

Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist)

Mean percentage of parenting strategies properly employed, as measured by the Planned Activities Training Checklist

Observational assessment

Not reported by authors

Secondary
SafeCare: Planned Activities Training Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 258 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Study reported = 0.37 Statistically significant, p = 0.01 Primary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Parenting: Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS), PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 258 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Study reported = 0.58 Statistically significant, p < 0.001 Primary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months

Mean percentage of parenting strategies properly employed on an observed parent-child clean-up task, as measured by the PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills checklist.

Direct observation

Internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.68 to 0.78.

Primary

Outcomes Rated Moderate

SafeCare/Project 12-Ways: Home Safety Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
Total Number of Hazardous Items
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-3 weeks Project 12-Ways 3 families Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Not applicable Not applicable Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Total Number of Hazardous Items

The Home Accident Prevention Inventory, a home assessment protocol to record the accessibility of hazardous items in the home, was used to record the number of hazardous items accessible to the target children. Five categories of hazards were included: (1) poisoning by solids and liquids, (2) suffocation by mechanical objects, (3) fire and electrical, (4) suffocation by ingested objects, and (5) firearms.

Observation

Rates of inter-observer agreement across hazard categories ranged from 77 to 100 percent.

Primary
Australian Adaptation of UCLA Parent-Child Health and Wellness Project
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
Going to the doctor
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 2 31 families Mean = 2.85 Mean = 2.00 Mean difference = 0.85 HomeVEE calculated = 0.78 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Going to the doctor
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 3 30 families Mean = 2.85 Mean = 2.20 Mean difference = 0.65 HomeVEE calculated = 0.59 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Going to the doctor
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 4 24 families Mean = 2.85 Mean = 1.75 Mean difference = 1.10 HomeVEE calculated = 0.92 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Health comprehension
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 2 31 families Mean = 5.10 Mean = 4.91 Mean difference = 0.19 HomeVEE calculated = 0.16 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Health comprehension
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 3 30 families Mean = 5.10 Mean = 5.80 Mean difference = -0.70 HomeVEE calculated = -0.71 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Health comprehension
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 4 24 families Mean = 5.10 Mean = 5.50 Mean difference = -0.40 HomeVEE calculated = -0.36 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Home Illustrations—Dangers
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 4 24 families Mean = 76.25 Mean = 57.33 Mean difference = 18.92 HomeVEE calculated = 1.50 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Home Illustrations—Dangers
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 3 30 families Mean = 76.25 Mean = 55.70 Mean difference = 20.55 HomeVEE calculated = 2.02 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Home Illustrations—Dangers
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 2 31 families Mean = 76.25 Mean = 54.82 Mean difference = 21.43 HomeVEE calculated = 1.65 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Home Illustrations—Precautions
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 4 24 families Mean = 78.85 Mean = 45.33 Mean difference = 33.52 HomeVEE calculated = 1.92 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Home Illustrations—Precautions
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 3 30 families Mean = 78.85 Mean = 47.10 Mean difference = 31.75 HomeVEE calculated = 1.91 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Home Illustrations—Precautions
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 2 31 families Mean = 78.85 Mean = 48.91 Mean difference = 29.94 HomeVEE calculated = 1.75 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Home Precautions
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 4 24 families Mean = 60.35 Mean = 45.67 Mean difference = 14.68 HomeVEE calculated = 0.67 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Home Precautions
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 3 30 families Mean = 60.35 Mean = 53.30 Mean difference = 7.05 HomeVEE calculated = 0.35 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Home Precautions
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 2 31 families Mean = 60.35 Mean = 48.73 Mean difference = 11.62 HomeVEE calculated = 0.60 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Illness and symptom recognition
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 2 31 families Mean = 12.95 Mean = 9.36 Mean difference = 3.59 HomeVEE calculated = 1.09 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Illness and symptom recognition
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 4 24 families Mean = 12.95 Mean = 10.50 Mean difference = 2.45 HomeVEE calculated = 0.69 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Illness and symptom recognition
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 3 30 families Mean = 12.95 Mean = 10.80 Mean difference = 2.15 HomeVEE calculated = 0.62 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Life threatening emergencies
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 4 24 families Mean = 4.95 Mean = 3.25 Mean difference = 1.70 HomeVEE calculated = 0.88 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Life threatening emergencies
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 3 30 families Mean = 4.95 Mean = 3.00 Mean difference = 1.95 HomeVEE calculated = 0.98 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Life threatening emergencies
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 2 31 families Mean = 4.95 Mean = 1.91 Mean difference = 3.04 HomeVEE calculated = 1.79 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Using medicine safely
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 4 24 families Mean = 2.15 Mean = 1.75 Mean difference = 0.40 HomeVEE calculated = 0.46 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Using medicine safely
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 3 30 families Mean = 2.15 Mean = 1.00 Mean difference = 1.15 HomeVEE calculated = 1.30 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Using medicine safely
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Assessment 2 Group 1 vs. Group 2 31 families Mean = 2.15 Mean = 1.27 Mean difference = 0.88 HomeVEE calculated = 0.97 Not available Secondary

footnote89

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

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

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Going to the doctor

Measures parent knowledge about when to go to the doctor, what to tell and ask the doctor. Scores ranging from 0 to 9 and represent the sum of 3 sub-scale scores related to calling the doctor, asking questions and following directions. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20 percent of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80 percent or more of answers were correct.

Parent/caregiver report

Cronbach’s α = 0.52

Secondary

Health comprehension

Measures parent knowledge of health related words and body parts. Scores range from 0 through to 6 and represent the sum of two-sub-scale scores: health related vocabulary and knowledge of body parts. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20 percent of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80 percent or more of answers were correct.

Parent/caregiver report

Cronbach’s α = 0.54

Secondary

Home Illustrations—Dangers

Count of the total number of dangers identified in pictures of six areas of the home (kitchen, bathroom, living room, stairs, bedroom and yard). Scores ranged from 0 to 104.

Parent/caregiver report

Cronbach’s α = 0.89

Primary

Home Illustrations—Precautions

Count of the total number of precautions identified for dangers identified in pictures of six areas of the home (kitchen, bathroom, living room, stairs, bedroom and yard)

Parent/caregiver report

Cronbach’s α = 0.87

Secondary

Home Precautions

Scores represent the total number of precautions actually taken to deal with 114 possible dangers in and around the home related to the following: fire, electrical, cooking, poisons, inappropriate edibles, suffocation, heavy and sharp objects, firearms, clutter, dangerous toys, animals, outside and general dangers.

Home assessment

Cronbach’s α = 0.98

Secondary

Illness and symptom recognition

Measures parent knowledge about symptoms of illness, common child health problems, and practical tasks such as taking a child’s temperature. Scores range from 0 to 21 and represent the sum of 7 sub-scale scores related to recognizing symptoms of illness. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20 percent of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80 percent or more of answers were correct.

Parent/caregiver report

Cronbach’s α = 0.66

Secondary

Life threatening emergencies

Measures parent knowledge about life threatening emergencies, including causes, prevention, and appropriate response. Scores range from 0 to 12 and represent the sum of 4 sub-scale scores related to parent knowledge of and skills in responding to life threatening emergencies. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20% of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80% or more of answers were correct.

Parent/caregiver report

Cronbach’s α = 0.69

Secondary

Using medicine safely

Measures parent knowledge about prescription medication, how to use medicine safely, reading important information on medication labels, and following directions exactly. Scores range from 0 to 6 and represent the sum of two sub-scale scores related to asking questions about and using medicine safely. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20% of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80% or more of answers were correct.

Parent/caregiver report

Cronbach’s α = 0.45

Secondary
SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 229 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Study reported = 0.68 Statistically significant, p < 0.001 Primary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Parenting: Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 229 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Study reported = 0.35 Statistically significant, p = 0.00 Primary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months

Mean percentage of parenting strategies properly employed on an observed parent-child clean-up task, as measured by the PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills checklist.

Direct observation

Internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.68 to 0.78.

Primary
SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 229 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Study reported = 0.68 Statistically significant, p < 0.001 Primary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Parenting: Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control 229 mother/child dyads Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Study reported = 0.35 Statistically significant, p = 0.00 Primary

footnote300

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months

Mean percentage of parenting strategies properly employed on an observed parent-child clean-up task, as measured by the PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills checklist.

Direct observation

Internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.68 to 0.78.

Primary
View Revisions