Negative effect is favorable
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.
Last updated: 2020
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 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
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%. |
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. |
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 |
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 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. 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 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. 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 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. 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 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. 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). |
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. |
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 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. 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 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. 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. |
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 |
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 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 | footnote162Negative 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 | footnote254Effect size and significance based on adjusted odds ratio provided to <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> by the authors. |
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. |
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 |
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 |