SafeCare®

Entries in this row combine information across all versions of SafeCare. Only SafeCare Augmented meets HHS criteria for an evidence-based home visiting model. For SafeCare itself, there are no manuscripts about high- or moderate-quality impact studies. Some other versions of SafeCare have at least one such manuscript. Planned Activities Training (a SafeCare module) and Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training (a SafeCare module with an add-on) show evidence of effectiveness.

Model effectiveness research report last updated: 2018

Effects shown in research & outcome measure details

Positive parenting practices

Findings rated high

SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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
Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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
Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties

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).

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

SafeCare: Planned Activities Training Module
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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
Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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
Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties

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).

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

SafeCare: Planned Activities Training Module
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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 outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties

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.

Parenting: Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS), PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months

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.

Direct observation

Internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.94 to 0.96.

Findings rated moderate

SafeCare/Project 12-Ways: Home Safety Module
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Total Number of Hazardous Items
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
2-3 weeks Project 12-Ways 3 families Not applicable Not applicable Not reported Not applicable Not applicable
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties

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.

Australian Adaptation of UCLA Parent-Child Health and Wellness Project
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Going to the doctor
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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 outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo 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

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 outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties

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.

Parenting: Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months

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.

Direct observation

Internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.94 to 0.96.

View Revisions