Family Check-Up® For Children Meets HHS Criteria

Last updated: 2017

Effects shown in research & outcome measure details

Positive parenting practices

Findings rated high

Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Proactive Parenting, Age 3, SEM
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 3 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 731 caregivers Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Statistically significant, p<0.011

footnote279

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

Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient and p-value.

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

Proactive Parenting, Age 3, SEM

An average score of six items measuring a parent's behavior to anticipate problems or prevent children from becoming upset. Uses the Coder Impressions Inventory to score videotaped interactions between the caregiver and child. Coding of videotaped interactions

a = .87

Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Positive Engagement, Ages 3 to 5, SEM
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Ages 3-5 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 731 caregiver-child dyads Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Statistically significant, p<0.011

footnote259

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

Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient and p-value. Model controls for income, ethnicity, gender, and baseline (age 2) measure of the outcome.

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

Positive Engagement, Ages 3 to 5, SEM

A summary score describing duration of positive and neutral engagement between parent and child. Coding of videotaped interactions (Relationship Affect Coding System)

Inter rater agreement ranges from 93% to 94%

Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Dyadic Positive Engagement, Age 3, SEM
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 3 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 731 caregiver-child dyads Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Statistically significant, p<0.011

footnote276

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

Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. Model controls for income, ethnicity, gender, and baseline (age 2) measure of outcome.

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

Dyadic Positive Engagement, Age 3, SEM

Proportion of time parents and children engage in mutually positive engagement (positive or neutral behaviors), measured using the Relationship Affect Coding System (RACS). Coding of videotaped interactions

Age 2 (baseline): kappa score = 0.93; coder agreement = 93%. Age 3 (outcome): kappa score = 0.93, coder agreement = 04%

Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Positive Behavior Support, Age 3, SEM
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 3 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 731 caregivers Not reported Not reported Not reported Study reported = 0.33 Statistically significant, p<0.051

footnote264

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

Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. Model controls for income, ethnicity, gender, and baseline (age 2) measure of child behaviors and outcome.

Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 5
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 3 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 731 caregivers Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Statistically significant, p<0.051

footnote264

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

Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. Model controls for income, ethnicity, gender, and baseline (age 2) measure of child behaviors and outcome.

Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 6
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 3 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 731 caregivers Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Statistically significant, p<0.051

footnote264

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

Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. Model controls for income, ethnicity, gender, and baseline (age 2) measure of child behaviors and outcome.

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

Positive Behavior Support, Age 3, SEM

A construct reflecting how well the caregiver supported the child's positive behaviors; combines scores on four measures (parent involvement, positive reinforcement, engaged parent-child interaction time, proactive parenting). Coding of videotaped interactions

Not reported by author

Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 5

A combination of four measures (parent involvement, caregiver prompting and reinforcing positive behavior, engaged parent child interactions, proactive parenting) of how well the caregiver supported the child's positive behaviors. In-person ratings and coding from videotaped interactions

Not reported by author

Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 6

A combination of four measures (parent involvement, caregiver prompting and reinforcing positive behavior, engaged parent child interactions, proactive parenting) of how well the caregiver supported the child's positive behaviors. In-person ratings and coding from videotaped interactions

Not reported by author

Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Positive Behavior Support, Age 3, SEM
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 3 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 726 caregivers Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Statistically significant, p<0.011

footnote272

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

Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value.

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

Positive Behavior Support, Age 3, SEM

A construct reflecting how well the caregiver supported the child's positive behaviors, combines scores on four measures (parent involvement, positive reinforcement, engaged parent-child interaction time, proactive parenting). In-person ratings and coding from videotaped interactions using the Relationship Process Code

Average videotape coding percent agreement=0.87, kappa=0.86

Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Positive Behavior Support, Age 3, SEM
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 3 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 731 caregivers Not reported Not reported Not reported Study reported = 0.24 Statistically significant, p<0.051

footnote268

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

Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported an estimate, coefficient, standard error, and p-value.

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

Positive Behavior Support, Age 3, SEM

A construct reflecting how well the caregiver supported the child's positive behaviors; combines scores on four measures (parent involvement, positive reinforcement, engaged parent-child interaction time, proactive parenting). Observations of parent/child interactions

Not reported by author

Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 5
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 3 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 731 mothers Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Statistically significant, p<0.051

footnote272

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

Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value.

Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 6
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 3 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 731 mothers Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Statistically significant, p<0.051

footnote272

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

Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value.

Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 7
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 3 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 731 mothers Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Statistically significant, p<0.051

footnote272

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

Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value.

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

Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 5

A combination of four measures (parent involvement, caregiver prompting and reinforcing positive behavior, engaged parent child interactions, proactive parenting) of how well the caregiver supported the child's positive behaviors. In-person ratings and coding from videotaped interactions

Cronbach’s a = 0.61

Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 6

A combination of four measures (parent involvement, caregiver prompting and reinforcing positive behavior, engaged parent child interactions, proactive parenting) of how well the caregiver supported the child's positive behaviors. In-person ratings and coding from videotaped interactions

Cronbach’s a = 0.61

Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 7

A combination of four measures (parent involvement, caregiver prompting and reinforcing positive behavior, engaged parent child interactions, proactive parenting) of how well the caregiver supported the child's positive behaviors. In-person ratings and coding from videotaped interactions

Cronbach’s a = 0.61

Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
HOME Involvement
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 3 and Age 4 Pittsburgh sample 92 families Mean = 2.00 Mean = 1.72 Difference = 0.82 HomeVEE calculated = 30.27 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05

footnote48

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

Statistical significance is based on the authors’ analysis using a two-way repeated measures analysis of covariance. Authors report using a one-tailed test.

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

HOME: Involvement scale

The HOME assesses parenting practices and aspects of the home environment. Three items were drawn from the HOME, Involvement scale: (1) parent keeps child in visual range, (2) parent talks to child while doing housework, and (3) parent structures child’s play. Observation by a trained examiner during a home visit

Cronbach’s α = 0.53 at age 2, Cronbach’s α = 0.56 at age 3 , Cronbach’s α = 0.68 at age 4

Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Dyadic Coercion - Age 3 (T-test)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 3 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 635 families Unadjusted mean = 0.09 Unadjusted mean = 0.09 Mean difference = -0.01 HomeVEE calculated = 0.07 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Dyadic Coercion - Age 4 (T-test)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 4 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 561 families Unadjusted mean = 0.09 Unadjusted mean = 0.09 Mean difference = 0.01 HomeVEE calculated = -0.01 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Dyadic Coercion - Age 5 (T-test)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 5 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 572 families Unadjusted mean = 0.06 Unadjusted mean = 0.07 Mean difference = -0.01 HomeVEE calculated = 0.12 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Dyadic Coercion, Age 3, Correlation
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 3 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 635 families Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Dyadic Coercion, Age 4, SEM
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 4 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 731 families Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Statistically significant, p<0.052

footnote261

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

Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a beta coefficient, standard error, and p-value. The following covariates were reported: child race, ethnicity, and gender; family income; mother's education; site location; positive engagement (age 2), coercion (age 2), OPP/AGG (age 2).

Dyadic Coercion, Age 4, Correlation
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 4 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 561 families Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Dyadic Coercion, Age 5, Correlation
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 5 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 572 families Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Positive Engagement, Age 3, SEM
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 3 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 731 families Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Statistically significant, p<0.012

footnote261

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

Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a beta coefficient, standard error, and p-value. The following covariates were reported: child race, ethnicity, and gender; family income; mother's education; site location; positive engagement (age 2), coercion (age 2), OPP/AGG (age 2).

Positive Engagement, Age 3, Correlation
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 3 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 635 families Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Statistically significant, p<0.01
Positive Engagement, Age 3, T-test
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 3 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 635 families Unadjusted mean = 0.37 Unadjusted mean = 0.34 Mean difference = 0.03 HomeVEE calculated = -0.24 Statistically significant, p<0.01
Positive Engagement, Age 4, Correlation
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 4 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 561 families Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Positive Engagement, Age 4, T-test
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 4 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 561 families Unadjusted mean = 0.28 Unadjusted mean = 0.27 Mean difference = 0.01 HomeVEE calculated = -0.03 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Positive Engagement, Age 5, Correlation
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 5 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 572 families Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Statistically significant, p<0.05
Positive Engagement, Age 5, T-test
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 5 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 572 families Unadjusted mean = 0.38 Unadjusted mean = 0.36 Mean difference = 0.02 HomeVEE calculated = -0.17 Statistically significant, p<0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

Dyadic Coercion - Age 3 (t-test)

A summary score describing mutually coercive behaviors between parent and child. Coding of videotaped interactions (Relationship Affect Coding System)

Overall Kappa score=0.93, Kappa at age 3=0.94

Dyadic Coercion - Age 4 (t-test)

A summary score describing mutually coercive behaviors between parent and child. Coding of videotaped interactions (Relationship Affect Coding System)

Overall Kappa score=0.93, Kappa at age 4=0.93

Dyadic Coercion - Age 5 (t-test)

A summary score describing mutually coercive behaviors between parent and child. Coding of videotaped interactions (Relationship Affect Coding System)

Overall Kappa score=0.93, Kappa at age 5=0.94

Dyadic Coercion, Age 3, Correlation

A summary score describing mutually coercive behaviors between parent and child. Coding of videotaped interactions (Relationship Affect Coding System)

Overall Kappa score=0.93, Kappa at age 3=0.94

Dyadic Coercion, Age 4, SEM

A summary score describing mutually coercive behaviors between parent and child. Coding of videotaped interactions (Relationship Affect Coding System)

Overall Kappa score=0.93, Kappa at age 4=0.93

Dyadic Coercion, Age 4, Correlation

A summary score describing mutually coercive behaviors between parent and child. Coding of videotaped interactions (Relationship Affect Coding System)

Overall Kappa score=0.93, Kappa at age 4=0.93

Dyadic Coercion, Age 5, Correlation

A summary score describing mutually coercive behaviors between parent and child. Coding of videotaped interactions (Relationship Affect Coding System)

Overall Kappa score=0.93, Kappa at age 5=0.94

Positive Engagement, Age 3, SEM

A summary score describing duration of positive and neutral engagement between parent and child. Coding of videotaped interactions (Relationship Affect Coding System)

Overall Kappa score=0.93, Kappa at age 3=0.94

Positive Engagement, Age 3, Correlation

A summary score describing duration of positive and neutral engagement between parent and child. Coding of videotaped interactions (Relationship Affect Coding System)

Overall Kappa score=0.93, Kappa at age 3=0.94

Positive Engagement, Age 3, T-test

A summary score describing duration of positive and neutral engagement between parent and child. Coding of videotaped interactions (Relationship Affect Coding System)

Overall Kappa score=0.93, Kappa at age 3=0.94

Positive Engagement, Age 4, Correlation

A summary score describing duration of positive and neutral engagement between parent and child. Coding of videotaped interactions (Relationship Affect Coding System)

Overall Kappa score=0.93, Kappa at age 4=0.93

Positive Engagement, Age 4, T-test

A summary score describing duration of positive and neutral engagement between parent and child. Coding of videotaped interactions (Relationship Affect Coding System)

Overall Kappa score=0.93, Kappa at age 4=0.93

Positive Engagement, Age 5, Correlation

A summary score describing duration of positive and neutral engagement between parent and child. Coding of videotaped interactions (Relationship Affect Coding System)

Overall Kappa score=0.93, Kappa at age 5=0.94

Positive Engagement, Age 5, T-test

A summary score describing duration of positive and neutral engagement between parent and child. Coding of videotaped interactions (Relationship Affect Coding System)

Overall Kappa score=0.93, Kappa at age 5=0.94

Findings rated moderate

Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Positive Behavior Support, Age 3, SEM
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 3 WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA 725 families Not reported Not reported Not reported Study reported = 0.33 Statistically significant, p<0.051

footnote274

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

Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value. Covariates included positive behavior support at age 2, child gender, child race/ethnicity (minority status = 1), project site, primary caregiver education, and average child aggression at ages 2-3.

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

Positive Behavior Support, Age 3, SEM

A construct reflecting how well the caregiver supported the child's positive behaviors; combines scores on four measures (parent involvement, positive reinforcement, engaged parent-child interaction time, proactive parenting). Coding of videotaped interactions

Not reported by author

View Revisions