Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Infant Meets HHS Criteria

Last updated: 2020

Effects shown in research & outcome measure details

Child development and school readiness

Findings rated high

Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Infant
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Strange Situation Procedure - Disorganized attachment

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

7 months post-intervention

ABC-I vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city

109 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.33 Unadjusted proportion Unadjusted proportion = 0.45 Unadjusted proportion Mean difference = -0.12 HomeVEE calculated = -0.31

Not statistically significant, p= 0.17

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

Strange Situation Procedure - Disorganized attachment

The Strange Situation procedure involves separating the child from the parent briefly to assess child's attachment to his or her caregiver upon reunification; results in classification of child as secure, avoidant, disorganized, or resistant. This study collapsed the categories into disorganized versus all others.

Videotaped interactions between mother and child.

Interrater agreement on disorganized attachment was 89%.

Findings rated moderate

Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Infant
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Strange Situation Procedure - Secure attachment

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

First post-intervention visit where child was at least 1-year old (range 11.8 to 31.9 months old)

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Delaware

105 children Adjusted proportion = 0.52 Adjusted proportion = 0.32 Mean difference = 0.20 HomeVEE calculated = 0.43

Statistically significant, p= 0.03

Model controls for child gender and cumulative social risk index.

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

Strange Situation Procedure - Secure attachment

The Strange Situation Procedure is a laboratory assessment of children's reliance on a parent when they are distressed.

Parent-child assessment

Not reported

Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Infant
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child emotion lability/negativity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Age 8

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia

80 children Not reported Not reported Not reported = -0.10

Not statistically significant, p= 0.67

Model does not include statistical controls.

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child emotion lability/negativity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Age 8

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia

80 children Not reported Not reported Not reported = -0.04

Not statistically significant, p= 0.87

Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months.

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child emotion lability/negativity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Age 8

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia

80 children Not reported Not reported Not reported = -0.08

Not statistically significant, p= 0.73

Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months, child risk, parent risk (0 to 24 months), and instability risk (0 to 24 months).

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child emotion lability/negativity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Age 8

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia

80 children Not reported Not reported Not reported = -0.04

Not statistically significant, p= 0.85

Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months, child risk, parent risk (0 to 24 months), parent risk (8 to 10 years), instability risk (0 to 24 months), and instability risk (8 to 10 years).

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child positive emotion regulation

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Age 8

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia

80 children Not reported Not reported Not reported = 0.07

Not statistically significant, p= 0.75

Model does not include statistical controls.

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child positive emotion regulation

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Age 8

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia

80 children Not reported Not reported Not reported = -0.05

Not statistically significant, p= 0.83

Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months.

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child positive emotion regulation

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Age 8

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia

80 children Not reported Not reported Not reported = -0.16

Not statistically significant, p= 0.48

Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months, child risk, parent risk (0 to 24 months), and instability risk (0 to 24 months).

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child positive emotion regulation

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Age 8

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia

80 children Not reported Not reported Not reported = -0.13

Not statistically significant, p= 0.55

Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months, child risk, parent risk (0 to 24 months), parent risk (8 to 10 years), instability risk (0 to 24 months), and instability risk (8 to 10 years).

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

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child emotion lability/negativity

The Emotional Regulation Checklist (cited in Shields & Cicchetti, 1997) is a 24-item checklist that measures emotion lability/negativity and positive emotion regulation in children. Items about emotion lability/negativity focus on child's quick or exaggered changes in mood (lability), reactive anger, and intensity of negative emotions.

Parent report

Not reported by author.

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child positive emotion regulation

The Emotional Regulation Checklist (cited in Shields & Cicchetti, 1997) is a 24-item checklist that measures emotion lability/negativity and positive emotion regulation in children. Items about positive emotion regulation focus on child's emotion understanding and empathy.

Parent report

Not reported by author.

Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Infant
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Child compliance composite

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

36 months of age

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city

101 mother/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 0.26 Unadjusted mean = -0.21 Mean difference = 0.47 Study reported = 0.53

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

Authors used ANOVA to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups; effect size is Cohen's D.

Child compliance: child touched toys

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

36 months of age

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city

101 mother/child dyads Unadjusted proportion = 0.33 Unadjusted proportion = 0.54 Mean difference = -0.21 = -0.52

Statistically significant, p <.05

Authors used Chi-Square Test of significance to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups.

Child compliance: duration of child touching toys (seconds)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

36 months of age

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city

101 mother/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 4.35 Unadjusted mean = 11.78 Mean difference = -7.43 Study reported = -0.42

Statistically significant, p= 0.04

Authors used ANOVA to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups; effect size is Cohen's D.

Child compliance: latency to child touching toys (seconds)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

36 months of age

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city

101 mother/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 263.47 Unadjusted mean = 199.89 Mean difference = 63.58 Study reported = 0.68

Statistically significant, p= 0.00

Authors used ANOVA to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups; effect size is Cohen's D.

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

Child compliance composite

Child compliance was coded using the Noldus Observer XT 11 and assessed using the 5-minute waiting task drawn from the Disruptive Behavior Diagnostic Observation Schedule (DB-DOS). The measure was constructed by taking the mean, standardized to a z-score, of the three other reported child compliance findings, with the time spent touching toys reversed coded so that a positive finding was favorable to the intervention.

Video recorded play interactions

Interrater reliability k=.85

Child compliance: child touched toys

Child compliance was coded using the Noldus Observer XT 11 and assessed using the 5-minute waiting task drawn from the Disruptive Behavior Diagnostic Observation Schedule (DB-DOS). A categorical variable of whether or not the child touched the toy was coded.

Video recorded play interactions

Interrater reliability k=.85

Child compliance: duration of child touching toys (seconds)

Child compliance was coded using the Noldus Observer XT 11 and assessed using the 5-minute waiting task drawn from the Disruptive Behavior Diagnostic Observation Schedule (DB-DOS). A total duration (seconds) of child touching toys was coded.

Video recorded play interactions

Interrater reliability k=.85

Child compliance: latency to child touching toys (seconds)

Child compliance was coded using the Noldus Observer XT 11 and assessed using the 5-minute waiting task drawn from the Disruptive Behavior Diagnostic Observation Schedule (DB-DOS). Latency of child touching toys in seconds was coded.

Video recorded play interactions

Interrater reliability k=.85

Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Infant
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Strange Situation Procedure - Disorganized attachment

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

7 months after enrollment (1 month post-intervention)

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city

105 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.32 Unadjusted proportion = 0.46 Mean difference = -0.14 HomeVEE calculated = -0.34

Not statistically significant, p= 0.16

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

Strange Situation Procedure - Disorganized attachment

The Strange Situation is a laboratory assessment of children's reliance on the parent when they are distressed.

Parent-child assessment

Interrater reliability=.89

Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Infant
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Kerns Security Scale - Attachment security

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Age 9

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city

100 children Unadjusted mean = 3.49 Unadjusted mean Unadjusted mean = 3.28 Unadjusted mean Mean difference = 0.21 HomeVEE calculated = 0.46

Statistically significant, p= 0.02

Model does not include statistical controls.

Kerns Security Scale - Attachment security

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Age 9

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city

100 children Adjusted mean = 3.49 Adjusted mean Adjusted mean = 3.28 Adjusted mean Mean difference = 0.21 HomeVEE calculated = 0.48

Statistically significant, p= 0.02

Model controls for receipt of financial assistance from the government.

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

Kerns Security Scale - Attachment security

Attachment security was measured using the Kerns Security Scale, a 15-item, self-report questionnaire. Responses were averaged across the four-point scale for each item. Higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived attachment security to primary caregiver.

Child questionnaire administered by interviewer.

Internal consistency, a=.71

Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Infant
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Strange Situation Procedure - Disorganized Attachment
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Approximately 1 month after program end, or longer if child not yet old enough to measure outcome. Full analytic sample 120 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.32 Unadjusted proportion = 0.57 Mean difference = -0.25 HomeVEE calculated = 0.67 Statistically significant, p = 0.012

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Strange Situation Procedure - Secure Attachment
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Approximately 1 month after program end, or longer if child not yet old enough to measure outcome. Full analytic sample 120 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.52 Unadjusted proportion = 0.33 Mean difference = 0.19 HomeVEE calculated = 0.46 Not statistically significant, p = 0.082

footnote254

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

Effect size and significance based on adjusted odds ratio provided to <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> by the authors.

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

Disorganized attachment

Strange Situation, a laboratory assessment of children's reliance on the parent when they are distressed. Parent-child assessment

Videotapes were double coded, and coders agreed on 87% of organized-disorganized classifications.

Secure attachment

Strange Situation, a laboratory assessment of children's reliance on the parent when they are distressed. Parent-child assessment

Videotapes were double coded, and coders agreed on 92% of secure-insecure classifications.

Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Toddler
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) - Receptive Vocabulary

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

36 months of age

ABC-Toddler vs. DEF; Delaware

32 children Unadjusted mean = 93.60 Unadjusted mean = 80.30 Mean difference = 13.30 HomeVEE calculated = 0.86

Statistically significant, p= 0.02

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) - Receptive Vocabulary

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

48 months of age

ABC-Toddler vs. DEF; Delaware

53 children Unadjusted mean = 99.60 Unadjusted mean = 97.00 Mean difference = 2.60 HomeVEE calculated = 0.17

Not statistically significant, p= 0.52

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) - Receptive Vocabulary

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

60 months of age

ABC-Toddler vs. DEF; Delaware

58 children Unadjusted mean = 105.10 Unadjusted mean = 95.50 Mean difference = 9.60 HomeVEE calculated = 0.60

Statistically significant, p= 0.03

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

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) - Receptive Vocabulary

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Third Edition (PPVT; Dunn & Dunn, 1997) measures child's receptive vocabulary.

Researcher-administered test

Not reported by author

View Revisions